Trial reportBMJ open2018
Similarity of chest X-ray and thermal imaging of focal pneumonia: a randomised proof of concept study at a large urban teaching hospital.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-cost thermal imaging with machine learning for non-invasive diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of pneumonia.Infrared physics & technology · 2022Article
- Passive Acoustic Thermometry of the Chest of a Person with COVID-19.Acoustical physics · 2022Article
- Automated processing of thermal imaging to detect COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of thermal imaging (TI) in the setting of focal consolidative pneumonia with chest X-ray (CXR) as the gold standard.
settingA large, 973-bed teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.
participants47 patients enrolled, 15 in a training set, 32 in a test set. Age range 10 months to 82 years (median=50 years). MATERIALS AND
methodsSubjects received CXR with subsequent TI within 4 hours of each other. CXR and TI were assessed in blinded random order. Presence of focal opacity (pneumonia) on CXR, the outcome parameter, was recorded. For TI, presence of area(s) of increased heat (pneumonia) was recorded. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the significance of the correlations of positive findings in the same anatomical region.
resultsWith TI compared with the CXR (the outcome parameter), sensitivity was 80.0% (95% CIs 29.9% to 98.9%), specificity was 57.7% (95% CI 37.2% to 76.0%). Positive predictive value of TI was 26.7% (95% CI 8.9% to55.2%) and its negative predictive value was 93.8% (95% CI 67.7% to 99.7%).
conclusionsThis feasibility study confirms proof of concept that chest TI is consistent with CXR in suggesting similarly localised focal pneumonia with high sensitivity and negative predictive value. Further investigation of TI as a point-of-care imaging modality is warranted.
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.