Evidence Hub

A systematic review of the role of quantitative CT in the prognostication and disease monitoring of interstitial lung disease

Dixon G, Thould H, Wells M, Tsaneva-Atanasova K, Scotton CJ, Gibbons MA, Barratt SL, Rodrigues JCL

European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2025

75 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

Background The unpredictable trajectory and heterogeneity of interstitial lung disease (ILDs) make prognostication challenging. Current prognostic indices and outcome measures have several limitations. Quantitative computed tomography (qCT) provides automated numerical assessment of CT imaging and has shown promise when applied to the prognostication and disease monitoring of ILD. This systematic review aims to highlight the current evidence underpinning the prognostic value of qCT in predicting outcomes in ILD. Methods A comprehensive search of four databases (Medline, EMCare, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature)) was conducted for studies published up to and including 22 November 2024. A modified CHARMS (CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) checklist was used for data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed using a Quality in Prognostic Studies template. Results The search identified 1134 unique studies, of which 185 studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Commonly studied ILD subtypes included idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (41%, n=75), mixed subtypes (26%, n=48) and systemic sclerosis ILD (16%, n=30). Numerous studies showed significant prognostic signals, even when adjusted for common covariates and/or significant correlation between serial qCT biomarkers and conventional outcome measures. Heterogenous and nonstandardised reporting methods meant that…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 75 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