ArticleBMC medical imaging2016
Osteoblastic lesion screening with an advanced post-processing package enabling in-plane rib reading in CT-images.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a two-image technique consisting of an axial and a coronal image generated by using the rib-flattening application: effect on reading time and diagnostic validityTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2020Article
- Automatic rib unfolding in postmortem computed tomography: diagnostic evaluation of the OpenRib software compared with the autopsy in the detection of rib fractures.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
- Blunt chest trauma: classification and management.Emergency radiology · 2019Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate screening and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of osteoblastic rib lesions using an advanced post-processing package enabling in-plane rib reading in CT-images.
methodsWe retrospectively assessed the CT-data of 60 consecutive prostate cancer patients by applying dedicated software enabling in-plane rib reading. Reading the conventional multiplanar reconstructions was considered to be the reference standard. To simulate clinical practice, the reader was given 10 s to screen for sclerotic rib lesions in each patient applying both approaches. Afterwards, every rib was evaluated individually with both approaches without a time limit. Sensitivities, specificities, positive/negative predictive values and the time needed for detection were calculated depending on the lesion's size (largest diameter < 5 mm, 5-10 mm, > 10 mm).
resultsIn 53 of 60 patients, all ribs were properly displayed in plane, in five patients ribs were partially displayed correctly, and in two patients none of the ribs were displayed correctly. During the 10-s screening approach all patients with sclerotic rib lesions were correctly identified reading the in-plane images (including the patients without a correct rib segmentation), whereas 14 of 23 patients were correctly identified reading conventional multiplanar images. Overall screening sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values were 100/27.0/46.0/100 %, respectively, for in-plane reading and 60.9/100/100/80.4 %, respectively, for multiplanar reading. Overall diagnostic (no time limit) sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values of in-plane reading were 97.8/92.8/74.6/99.5 %, respectively. False positive results predominantly occurred for lesions <5 mm in size.
conclusionsIn-plane reading of the ribs allows reliable detection of osteoblastic lesions for screening purposes. The limited specificity results from false positives predominantly occurring for small lesions.
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.