ArticleEuropean radiology2016
Diagnostic impact of digital tomosynthesis in oncologic patients with suspected pulmonary lesions on chest radiography.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Chest Digital Tomosynthesis in Patients Recovering after COVID-19 Pneumonia.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Observational
- Diagnostic performance of digital tomosynthesis to evaluate silicone airway stents and related complications.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- Digital chest tomosynthesis: the 2017 updated review of an emerging application.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the actual diagnostic impact of digital tomosynthesis (DTS) in oncologic patients with suspected pulmonary lesions on chest radiography (CXR).
methodsA total of 237 patients (135 male, 102 female; age, 70.8 ± 10.4 years) with a known primary malignancy and suspected pulmonary lesion(s) on CXR and who underwent DTS were retrospectively identified. Two radiologists (experience, 10 and 15 years) analysed in consensus CXR and DTS images and proposed a diagnosis according to a confidence score: 1 or 2 = definitely or probably benign pulmonary or extrapulmonary lesion, or pseudolesion; 3 = indeterminate; 4 or 5 = probably or definitely pulmonary lesion. DTS findings were proven by CT (n = 114 patients), CXR during follow-up (n = 105) or histology (n = 18).
resultsFinal diagnoses included 77 pulmonary opacities, 26 pulmonary scars, 12 pleural lesions and 122 pulmonary pseudolesions. DTS vs CXR presented a higher (P < 0.05) sensitivity (92 vs 15 %), specificity (91 vs 9 %), overall accuracy (92 vs 12 %), and diagnostic confidence (area under ROC, 0.997 vs 0.619). Mean effective dose of CXR vs DTS was 0.06 vs 0.107 mSv (P < 0.05).
conclusionsDTS improved diagnostic accuracy and confidence in comparison to CXR alone in oncologic patients with suspected pulmonary lesions on CXR with only a slight, though significant, increase in radiation dose. KEY POINTS: • Digital tomosynthesis (DTS) improves accuracy of chest radiography (CXR) in oncologic patients. • DTS improves confidence of CXR in oncologic patients. • DTS allowed avoidance of CT in about 50 % of oncologic patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26628064What 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.