ArticleBJR open2020
A head-to-head comparison of the intra- and interobserver agreement of COVID-RADS and CO-RADS grading systems in a population with high estimated prevalence of COVID-19.
Article in BJR open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inter-observer Variability in the Analysis of CO-RADS Classification for COVID-19 Patients.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of CO-RADS in patients with suspected Coronavirus Disease-2019: A single center experience.Clinical imaging · 2022Article
- Comparison of CO-RADS Scores Based on Visual and Artificial Intelligence Assessments in a Non-Endemic Area.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- AI-Assisted CT as a Clinical and Research Tool for COVID-19.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the inter- and intraobserver agreement of COVID-RADS and CO-RADS reporting systems among differently experienced radiologists in a population with high estimated prevalence of COVID-19. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Chest CT scans of patients with clinically-epidemiologically diagnosed COVID-19 were retrieved from an open-source MosMedData data set, randomised, and independently assigned COVID-RADS and CO-RADS grades by an abdominal radiology fellow, thoracic imaging fellow and a consultant cardiothoracic radiologist. The inter- and intraobserver agreement of the two systems were assessed using the Fleiss' and Cohen's κ coefficients, respectively.
resultsA total of 200 studies were included in the analysis. Both systems demonstrated moderate interobserver agreement, with κ values of 0.51 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.56] and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.50-0.59) for COVID-RADS and CO-RADS, respectively. When COVID-RADS and CO-RADS grades were dichotomised at cut-off values of 2B and 4 to evaluate the agreement between grades representing different levels of clinical suspicion for COVID-19, the interobserver agreement became substantial with κ values of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82) for COVID-RADS and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81) for CO-RADS. The median intraobserver agreement was considerably higher for CO-RADS reaching 0.81 (95% CI: 0.43-0.76) compared with 0.60 (95% CI: 0.43-0.76) of COVID-RADS.
conclusionsCOVID-RADS and CO-RADS showed comparable interobserver agreement, which was moderate when grades were compared head-to-head and substantial when grades were dichotomised to better reflect the underlying levels of suspicion for COVID-19. The median intraobserver agreement of CO-RADS was, however, considerably higher compared with COVID-RADS. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper provides a comprehensive review of the newly introduced COVID-19 chest CT reporting systems, which will help radiologists of all sub-specialties and experience levels make an informed decision on which system to use in their own practice.
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.