SynthesisRheumatology international2026
Diagnostic methods of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Rheumatology international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) is a potentially life-threatening extra-articular complication affecting 10-60% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Despite its clinical significance, the optimal diagnostic strategy remains uncertain. This systematic review assessed the diagnostic value of currently available methods for detecting RA-ILD. The review followed PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched for studies evaluating imaging modalities (chest X-ray, high-resolution computed tomography [HRCT], lung ultrasound), pulmonary function tests (forced vital capacity [FVC], total lung capacity [TLC], diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide [DLCO]), clinical features, and serum biomarkers. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 tool.Thirty-six studies were included. Risk of bias was low in 20, high in 1, and unclear in 15 studies. Applicability concerns were low in 18, unclear in 17 and high in 1 study. Lung ultrasound was most frequently evaluated, showing sensitivity of 70-100% and specificity of 56-97%. Only one HRCT study was identified; it demonstrated high specificity but moderate sensitivity for detecting a UIP pattern. No studies assessing lung volumes (FVC, TLC) were found. DLCO showed sensitivity for RA-ILD detection but limited specificity and uncertain optimal cut-off values. Among biomarkers, KL-6 was most studied (sensitivity 61-100%, specificity 78-91%), while other biomarkers demonstrated inconsistent results and lacked validation. Lung ultrasound appears diagnostically useful in RA-ILD. Evidence supporting pulmonary function tests is limited. Although KL-6 shows promise, biomarkers cannot currently serve as standalone diagnostic tools. Further well-designed prospective studies are required. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251035610 .
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.