ArticlePediatric radiology2015
Similar performance of Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems in young children with cystic fibrosis.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Thoracic imaging in cystic fibrosis : Radiography].Der Radiologe · 2020Review
- Initial clinical evaluation of stationary digital chest tomosynthesis in adult patients with cystic fibrosis.European radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the severity of lung disease in cystic fibrosis (CF), scoring systems based on chest radiographs (CXRs), CT and MRI have been used extensively, although primarily in research settings rather than for clinical purposes. It has recently been shown that those based on CXRs (primarily the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems) are as sensitive and valid as those based on CT. The reproducibility and correlation of both systems to pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were recently investigated and were found to be statistically identical. However, the relative performance of these systems has not been specifically assessed in children younger than 5 years old with mild lung disease, a critical age range in which PFTs is rarely performed.
objectiveTo investigate and compare the performance of the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems in children 0-5 years old with predominantly mild lung disease. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-five patients 0-5 years old with 105 CXRs were included in the study. Given that the goal was to compare system performance in mild disease, only the first two CXRs from each patient were included (all but five patients had two images). When only one image was available in the target age range, it only was included. Agreement between the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems was assessed using a 2X2 contingency table assuming binary classification of CF lung disease using CXR scoring systems (mild vs. non-mild). In the absence of PFTs or another external gold standard for comparison, the Wisconsin system was used as an arbitrary gold standard against which the Brasfield was compared. Correlation between the two systems was assessed via a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) for repeated measures.
resultsScores were rated as mild or non-mild based on published numerical cutoffs for each system. The systems agreed on 89/105 (85%) and disagreed on 16/105 (15%) of the CXRs. Agreement between the two systems was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Relative sensitivity and specificity of the Brasfield system (which since using the Wisconsin as the gold standard reflects relative agreement rather than absolute performance of the Brasfield) was also fairly high (85% and 84%, respectively). Relatively high correlation between the two systems was also estimated (r = 0.72).
conclusionThe current study, powered to find at least a mild correlation between the two systems, confirms the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems are in agreement when assessing CF lung disease even in patients younger than 5 years of age with predominantly mild disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26022611What 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.