ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Post-processing of computed tomography perfusion in patients with acute cerebral ischemia: variability of inter-reader, inter-region of interest, inter-input model, and inter-software.
Article in European radiology, 2020. 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.
- Applying arterial enhancement fraction (AEF) texture features to predict the tumor response in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the reproducibility of quantitative computed tomography perfusion (CTP) parameters generated using different post-processing methods and identify the relative impact of subjective factors on the robustness of CTP parameters in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 80 CTP datasets from patients with AIS or transient ischemic attack (TIA) were retrospectively post-processed by two observers using different regions of interest (ROI) types, input models, and software. The CTP parameters were derived for 10 parenchymal ROIs. The intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess the reproducibility of the CTP parameters for various post-processing methods. The Spearman correlation test was used to detect potential relationships between software and input models.
resultsThe ICCs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 0.94 (0.93-0.96), 0.94 (0.92-0.96), 0.82 (0.79-0.86), and 0.87 (0.85-0.90) for inter-reader agreement by using elliptic ROI, irregular ROI, single-input model, and dual-input model, respectively. The ICCs with 95% CI were 0.98 (0.98-0.98), 0.46 (0.43-0.50), and 0.25 (0.20-0.30) for inter-ROI type, inter-input model, and inter-software agreement, respectively.
conclusionsAlthough the CTP parameters were stable when measured using different readers with different ROI types, they varied for different input models and software. The standardization of CTP post-processing is essential to reduce variability of CTP values. KEY POINTS: • The CTP parameters derived by different readers with different ROI types have agreements that range from good to excellent. • The CTP parameters derived from different input models and software programs have poor agreement but significant correlations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32683549What 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.