ArticlePediatric pulmonology2020
Congenital lung abnormality quantification by computed tomography: The CLAQ method.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 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.
- Diffuse cystic lung diseases-a primer for radiologists.BJR open · 2026Review
- The Diagnostics and Management of Bronchopulmonary Sequestration: An International Survey among Specialized Caregivers.European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie · 2025Article
- Congenital lung abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging: the CLAM study.European radiology · 2023Article
- COllaborative Neonatal Network for the first European CPAM Trial (CONNECT): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2023Article
- The Management of Asymptomatic Congenital Pulmonary Airway Malformation: Results of a European Delphi Survey.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Congenital lung abnormality quantification by computed tomography: The CLAQ method.Pediatric pulmonology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo date, no consensus has been reached on the optimal management of congenital lung abnormalities, and factors predicting postnatal outcome have not been identified. We developed an objective quantitative computed tomography (CT) scoring method, and assessed its value for clinical decision-making.
methodsVolumetric CT-scans of all patients born with a congenital lung abnormality between January 1999 and 2018 were assessed. Lung disease was quantified using the newly-developed congenital lung abnormality quantification (CLAQ) scoring method. In 20 equidistant axial slices, cells of a square grid were scored according to the abnormality within. The scored CT parameters were used to predict development of symptoms, and SD scores for spirometry and exercise tolerance (Bruce treadmill test) at 8 years of age.
resultsCT-scans of 124 patients with a median age of 5 months were scored. Clinical diagnoses included congenital pulmonary airway malformation (49%), bronchopulmonary sequestration (27%), congenital lobar overinflation (22%), and bronchogenic cyst (1%). Forty-four patients (35%) developed symptoms requiring surgery of whom 28 (22%) patients became symptomatic before a CT-scan was scheduled. Lesional hyperdensity was found as an important predictor of symptom development and decreased exercise tolerance. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis, an optimal cut-off value for developing symptoms was found at 18% total disease.
conclusionCT-quantification of congenital lung abnormalities using the CLAQ method is an objective and reproducible system to describe congenital lung abnormalities on chest CT. The risk for developing symptoms may increase when more than a single lung lobe is affected.
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.