SynthesisOccupational and environmental medicine2026
Diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray screening for silicosis: a systematic review, meta-analysis and modelling study.
Synthesis in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adjusting for the diagnostic accuracy of CXR in the dose-response relationship between cumulative silica exposure and silicosis in miners.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Pooled it
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
Chest X-ray (CXR) is widely used for silicosis diagnosis, despite concerns regarding sensitivity. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of CXR for silicosis screening compared with CT, high-resolution CT (HRCT) and autopsy, and modelled the relationship between CXR sensitivity and disease severity.Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched on 2 July 2024 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024513830). Meta-analyses were performed by reference standard and at increasing reference test severity cut-offs. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool assessed risk of bias. In scenarios of fixed and relative sensitivity, according to disease severity, we estimated missed silicosis cases and the number needed to screen (NNS) in hypothetical populations of low (5%), medium (15%) and high (30%) silicosis prevalence.Twenty studies included 2156 participants and 1105 silicosis cases. CXR had moderate sensitivity (0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.86, I
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.