Heterogeneity in Unclassifiable Interstitial Lung Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
RATIONALE: Accurate diagnosis of interstitial lung disease is necessary to identify the most appropriate management strategy and to inform prognosis. Many patients cannot be provided a confident diagnosis, despite an exhaustive search for potential etiologies and review in a multidisciplinary conference, and are consequently labeled with unclassifiable interstitial lung disease. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and meta-analyze previous studies reporting on the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, clinical features, and outcome of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for all studies related to unclassifiable interstitial lung disease published before September 1, 2017. Two authors independently screened each citation for eligibility criteria, serially reviewing the title, abstract, and full-text manuscript, and then abstracted data pertaining to the study objectives from eligible studies. Articles were stratified by risk of selection bias, whether the publication stated that patients were reviewed in a multidisciplinary discussion, and by the frequency of surgical lung biopsy. Meta-analyses and meta-regression were performed to calculate the pooled prevalence of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease within an interstitial lung disease population and within specific subgroups to identify reasons for across-study heterogeneity. RESULTS: The search identified 10,130 unique citations, 313 articles underwent full-text review, and eligibility criteria were met in 88 articles. Twenty-two studies were deemed low risk of selection bias, including 1,060 patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung disease from a total of 10,174 patients with interstitial lung disease. The terminology and definition of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease varied substantially across publications, with inconsistent diagnostic criteria and evaluation processes. The prevalence of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease was 11.9% (95% confidence interval, 8.5-15.6%), with lower prevalence in centers that reported use of a formal multidisciplinary discussion of cases (9.5% vs. 14.5%). Four articles reported survival of unclassifiable interstitial lung disease, with 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year survival of 84% to 89%, 70% to 76%, and 46% to 70%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that unclassifiable interstitial lung disease is common but has substantial heterogeneity and inconsistent definitions across interstitial lung disease cohorts. These findings highlight important limitations in multicenter studies of fibrotic interstitial lung disease and the need for a standardized approach to interstitial lung disease diagnostic classification.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,012 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle