Evidence Hub

Pulmonary nodule malignancy probability: a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of the Mayo model

Papalampidou A, Papoutsi E, Katsaounou PA

Clinical radiology, 2022

46,694 participants

Abstract

AIM: To quantify the overall diagnostic accuracy of the Mayo model in predicting the probability of malignancy of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and references of relevant articles were searched systematically from inception up to 21 September 2021, to identify observational cohort studies, which reported on the diagnostic accuracy of the Mayo model in predicting the probability of malignancy in SPNs. The primary outcome was the pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO.

RESULTS: Forty studies involving 46,694 patients were included. The overall pooled AUC was 0.730 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.704-0.755), while sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.67-0.86) and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.57-0.77), respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that the model had a better performance among datasets with increased prevalence of current/ex-smokers (AUC 0.762, 95% CI: 0.713-0.810, versus AUC 0.695, 95% CI: 0.660-0.730 and among studies conducted in continents other than Asia (AUC 0.769, 95% CI: 0.732-0.806 versus AUC 0.699, 95% CI: 0.669-0.729, p<0.001, I2=91.20%) CONCLUSIONS: The Mayo model seems a fair diagnostic tool; however, the synthesised evidence informs clinicians and researchers that it may be more applicable on…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 46,694 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free