ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2007
Evaluation of two diuresis renography decision support systems to determine the need for furosemide in patients with suspected obstruction.
Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence-driven cardiac-structured reporting system for myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Totally automatic definition of renal regions of interest from 99mTc-MAG3 renograms: validation in patients with normal kidneys and in patients with suspected renal obstruction.Nuclear medicine communications · 2010Article
- Diagnostic performance of an expert system for interpretation of 99mTc MAG3 scans in suspected renal obstruction.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2008Article
- Decision support systems in diuresis renography.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the decisions regarding the need for furosemide made by two independent renal decision support systems, RENEX and CAR-TAN, with the need for furosemide determined in clinical practice and by expert reviewers using the baseline plus furosemide protocol. SUBJECTS AND
methodsRENEX and CARTAN are independent decision support systems that reach their conclusions without operator input. RENEX is a knowledge-based system and CARTAN is a statistical decision support system. Both were trained using the same pilot group of 31 adult patients (61 kidneys) referred for suspected obstruction. Subsequently, both systems were prospectively applied to 102 patients (200 kidneys) of whom 70 received furosemide; decisions regarding the need for furosemide were compared with the clinical decisions and the decisions of three experts who independently scored each kidney on the need for furosemide. Differences were resolved by consensus.
resultsRENEX agreed with the clinical and experts' decisions to give furosemide in 97% (68/70) and 98% (65/66) of patients, respectively, whereas CARTAN agreed in 90% (63/70) and 89% (59/66), respectively, p < 0.03. In contrast, CARTAN agreed with the experts' decision to withhold furosemide in 78% of kidneys (87/111), whereas RENEX agreed in only 69% of kidneys (77/111), p = 0.008.
conclusionUse of RENEX or CARTAN as decision support tools in the baseline plus furosemide protocol has the potential to help the radiologist avoid unnecessary imaging and reduce the technologist, computer, camera, and physician time required to perform the procedure.
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.