ArticleEuropean radiology2016
Back to the future: sagittal CT in the evaluation of COPD.
Article in European radiology, 2016. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serial decline in lung volume parameters on computed tomography (CT) predicts outcome in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).European radiology · 2022Article
- Identification of target zones for lung volume reduction surgery using three-dimensional computed tomography rendering.ERJ open research · 2020Article
- Sagittal-lung CT measurements in the evaluation of asthma-COPD overlap syndrome: a distinctive phenotype from COPD alone.La Radiologia medica · 2017Article
- Compatibility analysis of total lung capacity values measured by segmentation with computed tomography and helium dilution method.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify features of obstructive airway disease on sagittal reconstruction, compare the accuracy of findings to traditional imaging characteristics of COPD, and determine the fraction of additional cases identified using new characteristics.
methodsThe study was approved by the centre's Institutional Review Board and is HIPAA compliant. Two hundred sixteen patients with HRCT and spirometry within a 3-month window were included. Four radiologists evaluated each HRCT for traditional characteristics of COPD and new quantitative and qualitative features of obstruction on axial and sagittal reconstructions. Imaging characteristics were assessed for correlation with the spirometric diagnosis of obstructive airway disease.
resultsQuantitative and qualitative findings on sagittal reconstruction are highly specific for COPD (specificity >90 %). Features of hyperinflation on sagittal reconstruction are more accurate predictors of obstruction than traditional axial measures, with greater interobserver reliability (hyperinflation left hemidiaphragm: accuracy: 70.08 % ± 2.49 %; kappa: 0.511 versus traditional measures: accuracy: 62.00 % ± 5.38 %; kappa: 0.407). Sagittal reconstruction identified 27-70 % more patients with COPD than traditional axial findings (p < 0.05).
conclusionsAnalysis of sagittal reconstruction enables greater accuracy and specificity in the diagnosis of obstructive airway disease compared to traditional measures on axial imaging. Use of sagittal reconstructions can help identify up to 70 % more patients with COPD than traditional imaging findings alone. KEY POINTS: • HRCT sagittal reconstruction is useful in the evaluation of obstructive lung disease. • Findings on sagittal reconstructions allow physicians to more accurately diagnose COPD. • Routine use of sagittal reconstructions increases the sensitivity for diagnosing COPD.
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.