ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Updates in Diagnostic Tools for ILD.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Knowledge Regarding the Epidemiology, Exacerbating Factors, and Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Complicated by Interstitial Lung Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Place of death among adults with interstitial lung disease in the United States, 1999-2023: a national population-based study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Scoping out sarcoidosis: the evolving role of bronchoscopy.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Interstitial Lung Disease in 2025-Progress, Challenges, and Hope Ahead.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in clinical research on interstitial lung disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a group of diffuse parenchymal disorders, which are diagnosed in many cases by multidisciplinary discussion (MDD). In some cases, diagnosis can be challenging, and the addition of histopathology can increase diagnostic confidence. The tools to obtain a histopathological sample to diagnose ILD are expanding. In this review, we will discuss the various modalities, their sensitivities and specificities, and procedural complication rates. In this review, we conducted a comprehensive review of literature focusing on emerging and established diagnostic tools for ILD. A systematic search of peer-reviewed publications was performed using PubMed with a focus on clinical trials, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and systematic reviews. The key diagnostic modalities in focus were genomic classifier (GC), transbronchial cryobiopsy (TBLC), surgical lung biopsy (SLB), endobronchial ultrasound cryobiopsy (EBUS-C), genetic testing, and speckled transthoracic echocardiography (STE). Data extracted from these studies focused on diagnostic yield, specificity, sensitivity, and procedural complication rate. Genomic classifier, a gene-based molecular diagnostic tool, has a high specificity for histological usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP). However, in cases of a negative result, it often results in a need for further invasive sampling by TBLC or SLB. TBLC results in a larger histological sample, which can increase diagnostic yield and increase diagnostic confidence at MDD. Recent prospective trials have compared this modality with SLB and found 63-77% interobserver agreement between pathologists. SLB remains the gold standard with diagnostic yields reported to be more than 90%. EBUS-C has shown promising results increasing diagnostic yield in patients with suspected sarcoidosis or lymphoma. All diagnostic modalities have procedural complications with most common being pneumothorax, bleeding and, rarely, death. Advancements in diagnostic tools for interstitial lung disease (ILD) have significantly improved accuracy. Even though surgical lung biopsy remains the gold standard, the alternative modalities are promising and provide a promising yield with a lower procedural risk.
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.