Trial reportEuropean radiology experimental2020
Classifying the diagnosis of study participants in clinical trials: a structured and efficient approach.
Trial report in European radiology experimental, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of ultra-low-dose chest CT vs chest X-ray for acute non-traumatic pulmonary diseases.European radiology · 2025Trial
- The yield of chest X-ray or ultra-low-dose chest-CT in emergency department patients suspected of pulmonary infection without respiratory symptoms or signs.European radiology · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Interobserver Agreement for Classifying Infections in Emergency Department Patients Using Modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Criteria.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- External Validation of the 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Criteria for Infective Endocarditis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Limited Clinical Impact of Ultralow-Dose Computed Tomography in Suspected Community-Acquired Pneumonia.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA challenge in imaging research is a diagnostic classification of study participants. We hypothesised that a structured approach would be efficient and that classification by medical students, residents, and an expert panel whenever necessary would be as valid as classification of all patients by experts.
methodsOPTIMACT is a randomised trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of replacing chest x-ray for ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) at the emergency department. We developed a handbook with diagnostic guidelines and randomly selected 240 cases from 2,418 participants enrolled in OPTIMACT. Each case was independently classified by two medical students and, if they disagreed, by the students and a resident in a consensus meeting. Cases without consensus and cases classified as complex were assessed by a panel of medical specialists. To evaluate the validity, 60 randomly selected cases not referred to the panel by the students and the residents were reassessed by the specialists.
resultsOverall, the students and, if necessary, residents were able to assign a diagnosis in 183 of the 240 cases (76% concordance; 95% confidence interval [CI] 71-82%). We observed agreement between students and residents versus medical specialists in 50/60 cases (83% concordance; 95% CI 74-93%).
conclusionsA structured approach in which study participants are assigned diagnostic labels by assessors with increasing levels of medical experience was an efficient and valid classification method, limiting the workload for medical specialists. We presented a viable option for classifying study participants in large-scale imaging trials (Netherlands National Trial Register number NTR6163).
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.