Zong Ruilong, Xie Daohai, Geng Li, Wang Xiaohong, Wang Chunjie, Tian Lei
Abstract
To carry out a meta-analysis on the performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules.
In the meta-analysis, we performed searches of several electronic databases for relevant studies, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and several Chinese databases. The quality of all included studies was assessed by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Two observers independently extracted data of eligible articles. For the meta-analysis, the total sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratios were pooled. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed. The I-test was performed to assess the impact of study heterogeneity on the results of the meta-analysis. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were carried out to investigate the potential covariates that might have considerable impacts on heterogeneity.
Overall, 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis, including a total of 1297 patients and 1301 pulmonary nodules. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76-0.87), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90), 4.3 (95% CI, 2.3-7.9), and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.16-0.30), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed in sensitivity (I=81.1%) and specificity (I=89.6%). Subgroup analysis showed that the best results for sensitivity (0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-0.86) and accuracy (0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95) were present in a prospective study.
The results of our analysis suggest that PET/CT is a useful tool for detecting malignant pulmonary nodules qualitatively. Although current evidence showed moderate accuracy for PET/CT in differentiating malignant from benign solitary pulmonary nodules, further work needs to be carried out to improve its reliability.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2024.
All research outputs
#9,427,271
of 29,385,863 outputs
Outputs from Nuclear Medicine Communications
#372
of 2,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,409
of 430,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nuclear Medicine Communications
#10
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,385,863 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,446 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
