ArticleCureus2019
Computed Tomography Scan Overestimates the Size of Pericardial Effusion Compared to Echocardiography.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePericardial effusion is not an uncommon finding in hospitalized patients. Many pericardial effusions are found incidentally through computed tomography (CT) performed for other indications. Echocardiography is usually ordered when an incidentally discovered pericardial effusion is found on the CT to examine the effect of the effusion on hemodynamics and to detect early signs of tamponade. However, in clinical practice, the discrepancy between CT and echocardiography regarding the size of pericardial effusions is common. The accuracy of CT in the evaluation of the size of pericardial effusions is not well-studied. Our study aims to evaluate the accuracy of CT in assessing the size of a pericardial effusion compared with the gold standard echocardiography.
methodsThis is a retrospective study examining patients presenting to the University of Toledo Medical Center (UTMC) with pericardial effusions. One hundred and forty-one patient charts were reviewed and 45 subjects were excluded. Ninety-six patients in whom both CT and echocardiography were performed were enrolled in the final analysis. The time interval between both imaging modalities was limited to less than 14 days and no interventions on the effusion (e.g., pericardiocentesis) occurred in the time interval between the two imaging modalities.
resultsThe size of the pericardial effusion was assessed similarly between CT and echocardiography in 50% of the cases (48/96). In the other half of the study population, the results were discrepant; CT was found to overestimate the size of pericardial effusion in 44% of the cases (42/96). The agreement rate between the two modalities is significantly low kappa = 0.111, P = 0.028. The independent variables age, gender, body mass index (BMI), use of anticoagulants, and renal function had no effect on the agreement between CT and echocardiography.
conclusionComputerized tomography tends to overestimate the size of the pericardial effusion compared to echocardiography. Based on an incidental finding of pericardial effusion on CT scan, this discrepancy should be recognized prior to ordering an echocardiogram. Echocardiography can be considered in relevant clinical settings.
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.