ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Radiologist agreement on the quantification of bronchiectasis by high-resolution computed tomography.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Quantitative Analysis of Bronchiectasis in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency.Canadian respiratory journal · 2026Article
- Review
- The radiological diagnosis of bronchiectasis: what's in a name?European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020Review
- Interobserver variability in high-resolution CT of the lungs.European journal of radiology open · 2020Article
- Ratio of the Bronchial Lumen to Pulmonary Artery Diameter in Rhesus Macaques (Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2019Article
- Bronchiectasis-COPD Overlap Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review of its Pathophysiology and Potential Cardiovascular Implications.Therapeutic advances in pulmonary and critical care medicineReview
- Mounier-Kuhn syndrome: an unusual cause of bronchiectasis.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate radiologist agreement on the quantification of bronchiectasis by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe HRCT scans of 43 patients with bronchiectasis were analyzed by two radiologists, who used a scoring system to grade the findings. Kappa (κ) values and overall agreement were calculated.
resultsFor the measurement and appearance of bronchiectasis, the interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.45 and κ = 0.43, respectively), as was the intraobserver agreement (κ = 0.54 and κ = 0.47, respectively). Agreement on the presence of mucous plugging was fair, for central distribution (overall interobserver agreement of 68.3% and κ = 0.39 for intraobserver agreement) and for peripheral distribution (κ = 0.34 and κ = 0.35 for interobserver and intraobserver agreement, respectively). The agreement was also fair for peribronchial thickening (κ = 0.21 and κ = 0.30 for interobserver and intraobserver agreement, respectively). There was fair interobserver and intraobserver agreement on the detection of opacities (κ = 0.39 and 71.9%, respectively), ground-glass attenuation (64.3% and κ = 0.24, respectively), and cysts/bullae (κ = 0.47 and κ = 0.44, respectively). Qualitative analysis of the HRCT findings of bronchiectasis and the resulting individual patient scores showed that there was an excellent correlation between the observers (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.85 and 0.81 for interobserver and intraobserver agreement, respectively).
conclusionIn the interpretation of HRCT findings of bronchiectasis, radiologist agreement appears to be fair. In our final analysis of the findings using the proposed score, we observed excellent interobserver and intraobserver agreement.
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.