ArticleBMC medical imaging2021
RSNA and BSTI grading systems of COVID-19 pneumonia: comparison of the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Do COVID-19 CT features vary between patients from within and outside mainland China? Findings from a meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the performance and interobservers agreement of cases with findings on chest CT based on the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guideline statement of COVID-19 and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) expert consensus statement.
methodsIn this study, 903 patients who had admitted to the emergency department with a pre-diagnosis of COVID-19 between 1 and 18 July 2020 and had chest CT. Two radiologists classified the chest CT findings according to the RSNA and BSTI consensus statements. The performance, sensitivity and specificity values of the two classification systems were calculated and the agreement between the observers was compared by using kappa analysis.
resultsConsidering RT-PCR test result as a gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were significantly higher for the two observers according to the BSTI guidance statement and the RSNA expert consensus statement (83.3%, 89.7%, 89.0%; % 81.2,% 89.7,% 88.7, respectively). There was a good agreement in the PCR positive group (κ: 0.707; p < 0.001 for BSTI and κ: 0.716; p < 0.001 for RSNA), a good agreement in the PCR negative group (κ: 0.645; p < 0.001 for BSTI and κ: 0.743; p < 0.001 for RSNA) according to the BSTI and RSNA classification between the two radiologists.
conclusionAs a result, RSNA and BSTI statement provided reasonable performance and interobservers agreement in reporting CT findings of COVID-19. However, the number of patients defined as false negative and indeterminate in both classification systems is at a level that cannot be neglected.
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.