Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40488936›Full record

ArticleClinical rheumatology2025

Computed tomography-based quantitative scoring system for rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study for progressive fibrosis detection.

Mehmet Cihan Karacaoğlu, Betül Kızıldağ, Burak Okyar, Gözde Yıldırım Çetin, Adem Doğaner, Nurhan Atilla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Mehmet Cihan KaracaoğluDepartment of Radiology, Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey. mcihankaracaoglu@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8510-4866
Betül KızıldağDepartment of Radiology, Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2567-4330
Burak OkyarDepartment of Rheumatology, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9028-9930
Gözde Yıldırım ÇetinDepartment of Rheumatology, Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9680-7535
Adem DoğanerDepartment of Biostatistics, Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0270-9350
Nurhan AtillaDepartment of Pulmonology, Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4127-4924

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the ability of quantitative parameters to assess the severity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD).

methodsThorax CT images and pulmonary function tests of RA patients followed up in a tertiary reference center were retrospectively examined. Radiologically, patients were divided into two groups as limited and extensive ILD, using two semiquantitative scoring systems. Two different methods (Method 1, Method 2) were used for quantitative image analysis, in which different Hounsfield unit values were selected as thresholds. Spearman's correlation test was used to evaluate the relationship between variables. The diagnostic performance of quantitative methods for the ability to distinguish limited ILD from extensive ILD was calculated using ROC analysis.

resultsForty-four patients, 29 female and 15 male, were included in the study. A significant correlation was found between diffusion capacity of the lungs carbonmonoxide (DLCO) and total lung capacity (TLC), which are clinical markers, and both quantitative methods (p < 0.001). In terms of the performance of diagnostic tests, the power of Method 1 and Method 2 to distinguish limited and extensive disease classified based on semiquantitative scores was found to be strong (Method 1 AUC = 0.945, Method 2 AUC = 0.785 based on "ILD score"; Method 1 AUC = 0.911, Method 2 AUC = 0.700 based on "modified coarseness of reticular disease (MCRD) score").

conclusionThis study demonstrates that quantitative methods (Method 1 [- 700 to - 200 HU] and Method 2 [- 800 to - 500 HU]) play a significant role in assessing the severity of RA-associated ILD (RA-ILD). Both methods showed significant correlations with pulmonary function tests (DLCO [r

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidLungLung Diseases, InterstitialTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRespiratory Function TestsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSeverity of Illness IndexComputer-assisted image analysisInterstitial lung diseasesMultidetector computed tomographyPulmonary function testsRheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID40488936
PMCPMC12234623

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.