ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Retrospective assessment of interobserver agreement and accuracy in classifications and measurements in subsolid nodules with solid components less than 8mm: which window setting is better?
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Accuracy of solid portion size measured on multiplanar volume rendering images for assessing invasiveness in lung adenocarcinoma manifesting as subsolid nodules.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Differentiation of primary lung cancer from solitary lung metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- A comparative study to evaluate CT-based semantic and radiomic features in preoperative diagnosis of invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas manifesting as subsolid nodules.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Clinical T category for lung cancer staging: A pragmatic approach for real-world practice.Thoracic cancer · 2020Article
- Assessing invasiveness of subsolid lung adenocarcinomas with combined attenuation and geometric feature models.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Clinical T categorization in stage IA lung adenocarcinomas: prognostic implications of CT display window settings for solid portion measurement.European radiology · 2019Article
- Implementation of lung cancer screening at the national level: Polish example.Translational lung cancer research · 2019Review
- A simple prediction model using size measures for discrimination of invasive adenocarcinomas among incidental pulmonary subsolid nodules considered for resection.European radiology · 2019Observational
- Implication of total tumor size on the prognosis of patients with clinical stage IA lung adenocarcinomas appearing as part-solid nodules: Does only the solid portion size matter?European radiology · 2019Observational
- Evaluation of T categories for pure ground-glass nodules with semi-automatic volumetry: is mass a better predictor of invasive part size than other volumetric parameters?European radiology · 2018Article
- Effect of CT window settings on size measurements of the solid component in subsolid nodules: evaluation of prediction efficacy of the degree of pathological malignancy in lung adenocarcinoma.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Pulmonary subsolid nodules: value of semi-automatic measurement in diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic reproducibility and nodule classification agreement.European radiology · 2018Article
- Lung nodules: size still matters.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2017Review
- Semiquantative Visual Assessment of Sub-solid Pulmonary Nodules ≦3 cm in Differentiation of Lung Adenocarcinoma Spectrum.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Diameter of the Solid Component in Subsolid Nodules on Low-Dose Unenhanced Chest Computed Tomography: Measurement Accuracy for the Prediction of Invasive Component in Lung Adenocarcinoma.Korean journal of radiologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare interobserver agreements among multiple readers and accuracy for the assessment of solid components in subsolid nodules between the lung and mediastinal window settings.
methodsSeventy-seven surgically resected nodules with solid components smaller than 8 mm were included in this study. In both lung and mediastinal windows, five readers independently assessed the presence and size of solid component. Bootstrapping was used to compare the interobserver agreement between the two window settings. Imaging-pathology correlation was performed to evaluate the accuracy.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the interobserver agreements between the two windows for both identification (lung windows, k = 0.51; mediastinal windows, k = 0.57) and measurements (lung windows, ICC = 0.70; mediastinal windows, ICC = 0.69) of solid components. The incidence of false negative results for the presence of invasive components and the median absolute difference between the solid component size and the invasive component size were significantly higher on mediastinal windows than on lung windows (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively).
conclusionsThe lung window setting had a comparable reproducibility but a higher accuracy than the mediastinal window setting for nodule classifications and solid component measurements in subsolid nodules. KEY POINTS: • Reproducibility was similar between the two windows in nodule classifications. • Reproducibility was similar between the two windows in solid component measurements. • Accuracy for solid component assessment was higher on lung windows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27456963What 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.