Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34349191›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2021

Deep learning for pulmonary embolism detection on computed tomography pulmonary angiogram: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shelly Soffer, Eyal Klang, Orit Shimon, Yiftach Barash, Noa Cahan, Hayit Greenspana, Eli Konen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Application of an artificial intelligence-based tool in [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shelly SofferInternal Medicine B, Assuta Medical Center, Samson Assuta Ashdod University Hospital, Ashdod, Israel. soffer.shelly@gmail.com.
Eyal KlangDeep Vision Lab, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Orit ShimonSackler Medical School, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yiftach BarashDeep Vision Lab, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Noa CahanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Hayit GreenspanaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Eli KonenDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the gold standard for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis. However, this diagnosis is susceptible to misdiagnosis. In this study, we aimed to perform a systematic review of current literature applying deep learning for the diagnosis of PE on CTPA. MEDLINE/PUBMED were searched for studies that reported on the accuracy of deep learning algorithms for PE on CTPA. The risk of bias was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. A total of 36,847 CTPA studies were analyzed. All studies were retrospective. Five studies provided enough data to calculate summary estimates. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for PE detection were 0.88 (95% CI 0.803-0.927) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.756-0.924), respectively. Most studies had a high risk of bias. Our study suggests that deep learning models can detect PE on CTPA with satisfactory sensitivity and an acceptable number of false positive cases. Yet, these are only preliminary retrospective works, indicating the need for future research to determine the clinical impact of automated PE detection on patient care. Deep learning models are gradually being implemented in hospital systems, and it is important to understand the strengths and limitations of these algorithms.

Indexed as

Deep LearningComputed Tomography AngiographyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPulmonary EmbolismROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID34349191
PMCPMC8338977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.