Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39360028›Full record

ReviewBreathe (Sheffield, England)2024

Lung imaging methods: indications, strengths and limitations.

Dávid László Tárnoki, Kinga Karlinger, Carole A Ridge, Fanni Júlia Kiss, Tamás Györke, Elzbieta Magdalena Grabczak, Ádám Domonkos Tárnoki

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Engineering function in lung biology: integrating imaging, regenerative constructs, and functional biodesign.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. 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.

Dávid László TárnokiMedical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Kinga KarlingerMedical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Carole A RidgeDepartment of Radiology, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, London, UK.
Fanni Júlia KissMedical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Tamás GyörkeMedical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Elzbieta Magdalena GrabczakDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Diseases and Allergy, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0901-118X
Ádám Domonkos TárnokiMedical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging methods are fundamental tools to detect and diagnose lung diseases, monitor their treatment and detect possible complications. Each modality, starting from classical chest radiographs and computed tomography, as well as the ever more popular and easily available thoracic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and nuclear medicine methods, and new techniques such as photon counting computed tomography, radiomics and application of artificial intelligence, has its strong and weak points, which we should be familiar with to properly choose between the methods and interpret their results. In this review, we present the indications, strengths and main limitations of methods for chest imaging.

Identifiers

PMID39360028
PMCPMC11444493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.