SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary nodules: classification, biomarkers, signaling pathways, diseases, early diagnosis and management.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies to date have reported on the development of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT)-based models intended to effectively distinguish between benign and malignant pulmonary nodules (PNs). This meta-analysis was designed with the goal of clarifying the utility of these PET/CT-based conventional parameter models as diagnostic tools in the context of the differential diagnosis of PNs.
methodsRelevant studies published through September 2023 were identified by searching the Web of Science, PubMed, and Wanfang databases, after which Stata v 12.0 was used to conduct pooled analyses of the resultant data.
resultsThis meta-analysis included a total of 13 retrospective studies that analyzed 1,731 and 693 malignant and benign PNs, respectively. The respective pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR values for the PET/CT-based studies developed in these models were 88% (95%CI: 0.86-0.91), 78% (95%CI: 0.71-0.85), 4.10 (95%CI: 2.98-5.64), and 0.15 (95%CI: 0.12-0.19). Of these endpoints, the pooled analyses of model sensitivity (I
conclusionsThese results suggest that PET/CT-based models may offer diagnostic performance superior to that of PET results alone when distinguishing between benign and malignant PNs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.