SynthesisTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
Contrast-enhanced computed tomography versus positron emission tomography/positron emission tomography-computed tomography in suspected lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Synthesis in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a nomogram integrating multi-dimensional clinical factors for predicting lung cancer-related mediastinal/hilar lymph node metastasis before endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Metastatic organ distribution characteristics and prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is uncertainty regarding the optimal next imaging modality for identifying likely malignant pulmonary lesions in patients with abnormal chest radiography, with or without respiratory symptoms.
objectivesWe compared the diagnostic accuracy of chest contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/PET-CT) for identifying malignant pulmonary lesions.
designSystematic review and meta-analysisData sources and methods:We searched the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases to identify head-to-head diagnostic accuracy studies comparing CECT and PET/PET-CT for their ability to differentiate between benign and malignant pulmonary lesions. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies - Comparative (QUADAS-C) tool. Meta-analysis was performed using the bivariate random effects model.
resultsWe included eight studies, comprising a total of 873 subjects. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CECT (850 lesions) were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96;
conclusionsBased on limited evidence with applicability concerns, CECT of the chest may have a higher sensitivity but lower specificity than PET/PET-CT for identifying malignant lesions among patients with suspected lung cancer.
trial registrationThe protocol for the systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024590904).
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.