Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39044038›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Meta-analysis of [

Ryan Donnelly, Michael McDermott, Gerry McManus, Alessandro N Franciosi, Michael P Keane, Emmet E McGrath, Cormac McCarthy, David J Murphy

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Contemporary management of sarcoidosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026
    Review
  10. Advanced Pulmonary Sarcoidosis: Treatment and Monitoring.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Lactate and lactylation in cancer.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025
    Review
  14. 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

8 authors.

Ryan DonnellySt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, Ireland. ryandonnellymd@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4393-9897
Michael McDermottSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, Ireland.
Gerry McManusSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, Ireland.
Alessandro N FranciosiSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, Ireland.
Michael P KeaneSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, Ireland.
Emmet E McGrathSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, Ireland.
Cormac McCarthySt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, Ireland. cormac.mccarthy@ucd.ie.
David J MurphySt. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, Ireland. David.Murphy@st-vincents.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT is emerging as a tool in the diagnosis and evaluation of pulmonary sarcoidosis, however, there is limited consensus regarding its diagnostic performance and prognostic value.

methodA meta-analysis was conducted with PubMed, Science Direct, MEDLINE, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases searched up to and including September 2023. 1355 studies were screened, with seventeen (n = 708 patients) suitable based on their assessment of the diagnostic performance or prognostic value of FDG-PET/CT. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Forest plots of pooled sensitivity and specificity were generated to assess diagnostic performance. Pooled changes in SUVmax were correlated with changes in pulmonary function tests (PFT).

resultsFDG-PET/CT in diagnosing suspected pulmonary sarcoidosis (six studies, n = 400) had a pooled sensitivity of 0.971 (95%CI 0.909-1.000, p = < 0.001) and specificity of 0.873 (95%CI 0.845-0.920)(one study, n = 169). Eleven studies for prognostic analysis (n = 308) indicated a pooled reduction in pulmonary SUVmax of 4.538 (95%CI 5.653-3.453, p = < 0.001) post-treatment. PFTs displayed improvement post-treatment with a percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) of 7.346% (95%CI 2.257-12.436, p = 0.005) and 3.464% (95%CI -0.205-7.132, p = 0.064), respectively. Reduction in SUVmax correlated significantly with FVC (r = 0.644, p < 0.001) and DLCO (r = 0.582, p < 0.001) improvement.

conclusionIn cases of suspected pulmonary sarcoidosis, FDG-PET/CT demonstrated good diagnostic performance and correlated with functional health scores. FDG-PET/CT may help to guide immunosuppression in cases of complex sarcoidosis or where treatment rationalisation is needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: FDG-PET/CT has demonstrated a high diagnostic performance in the evaluation of suspected pulmonary sarcoidosis with radiologically assessed disease activity correlating strongly with clinically derived pulmonary function tests. KEY POINTS: In diagnosing pulmonary sarcoidosis, FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity and specificity of 0.971 and 0.873, respectively. Disease activity, as determined by SUVmax, reduced following treatment in all the included studies. Reduction in SUVmax correlated with an improvement in functional vital capacity, Diffusion Capacity of the Lungs for Carbon Monoxide, and subjective health scoring systems.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Positron Emission Tomography Computed TomographySarcoidosis, PulmonaryHumansRadiopharmaceuticalsRespiratory Function TestsSensitivity and SpecificityFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals18F-FDG PET/CTDiagnosisPrognosisPulmonarySarcoidosis

Identifiers

PMID39044038
PMCPMC11913913

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.