ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Clinical analysis of incidental discovery of pulmonary nodules with computed tomography: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- A transfer learning-based hybrid deep- and machine-learning regression approach for predicting the postoperative pulmonary function.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- The association between health literacy and Health Information-Seeking Behavior among pulmonary nodule patients: a serial mediation of illness perception and self-efficacy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Retrospective analysis of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on routine chest CT scans.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Thoracic CT Screening in a Population With Unidentified Lung Cancer Risk Factors: Does It Facilitate the Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer?Canadian respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Post-COVID-19 incidentally discovered adrenal findings (a CT-focused real-life study).Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The increasing use of computed tomography (CT) for screening has led to a rising number of incidental pulmonary nodule detections. The incidental pulmonary nodule detection rates are well-documented in Western populations, but large-scale data from Chinese cohorts remain limited. Understanding the clinical characteristics of these lesions is crucial for the early diagnosis and management of potential malignancies. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules in routine Chinese practice, their malignant potential based on radiological characteristics, and the diagnostic outcomes of high-risk nodules. Methods: The study enrolled patients who underwent CT screening from February 2020 to February 2022, except for those with respiratory diseases or primary malignant tumors. Clinical and radiologic characteristics were retrospectively analyzed. Additionally, patients with high-risk lesions (noncalcified nodules ≥6 mm) were informed and followed up every 6 months until a clear pathological diagnosis was made. Results: The cohort (n=120,623) comprised 25.2% of individuals aged >65 years with 49.9% males, identifying 52.9% CT-positive (diameter ≥4 mm) cases, with 5.1% high-risk lesions. Among 5,482 followed cases, 343 underwent surgery or invasive diagnostics, confirming lung cancer in 310 (93.9% adenocarcinoma) after a 30-month median follow-up. Conclusions: CT screening demonstrates significant potential for incidental pulmonary nodule detection, with a subset exhibiting high malignancy risk. Our findings underscore the clinical value of targeted, risk-stratified screening over universal approaches in China.
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.