Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38248024›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Predicting the Invasiveness of Pulmonary Adenocarcinomas in Pure Ground-Glass Nodules Using the Nodule Diameter: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Validation in an Independent Cohort.

Jieke Liu, Xi Yang, Yong Li, Hao Xu, Changjiu He, Peng Zhou, Haomiao Qing

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The role ofFrontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jieke LiuDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, China.
Xi YangDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, China.
Yong LiDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, China.
Hao XuDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, China.
Changjiu HeDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, China.
Peng ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, China.
Haomiao QingDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610041, China.
Sichuan Cancer Hospital · CNUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CN

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities ZYGX2021YGCX017National Natural Science Foundation of China 82202141Sichuan Science and Technology Program 2022YFSY0006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The nodule diameter was commonly used to predict the invasiveness of pulmonary adenocarcinomas in pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs). However, the diagnostic performance and optimal cut-off values were inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the nodule diameter for predicting the invasiveness of pulmonary adenocarcinomas in pGGNs and validated the cut-off value of the diameter in an independent cohort. Relevant studies were searched through PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, from inception until December 2022. The inclusion criteria comprised studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the nodule diameter to differentiate invasive adenocarcinomas (IAs) from non-invasive adenocarcinomas (non-IAs) in pGGNs. A bivariate mixed-effects regression model was used to obtain the diagnostic performance. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore the heterogeneity. An independent sample of 220 pGGNs (82 IAs and 128 non-IAs) was enrolled as the validation cohort to evaluate the performance of the cut-off values. This meta-analysis finally included 16 studies and 2564 pGGNs (761 IAs and 1803 non-IAs). The pooled area under the curve, the sensitivity, and the specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.88), 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.86), and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.78). The diagnostic performance was affected by the measure of the diameter, the reconstruction matrix, and patient selection bias. Using the prespecified cut-off value of 10.4 mm for the mean diameter and 13.2 mm for the maximal diameter, the mean diameter showed higher sensitivity than the maximal diameter in the validation cohort (0.85 vs. 0.72,

Indexed as

computed tomographydiameterinvasive adenocarcinomameta-analysispure ground-glass nodule

Identifiers

PMID38248024
PMCPMC10814052
OpenAlexW4390672643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.