ReviewJournal of medical imaging and radiation oncology2022
Chest imaging findings in COVID-19-positive patients in an Australian tertiary hospital.
Review in Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-Group Agreement in Chest Radiographic Quality Assessment: Comparing Final-Year Students and Experienced Radiographers Across Three Quality Assessment Domains During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- A Literature Review on the Relative Diagnostic Accuracy of Chest CT Scans versus RT-PCR Testing for COVID-19 Diagnosis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Review
- Relationship between interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels and chest X-ray severity scoring in COVID-19 patients.Narra J · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected over 215 million individuals worldwide. Chest radiographs (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) have assisted with diagnosis and assessment of COVID-19. Previous reports have described peripheral and lower zone predominant opacities on chest radiographs. Whilst the most common patterns on CT are bilateral, peripheral basal predominant ground glass opacities (Wong et al., Radiology, 296, 2020, E72; Karimian and Azami, Pol J Radiol, 86, 2021, e31). This study describes the imaging findings in an Australian tertiary hospital population.
methodsCOVID-PCR-positive patients who had chest imaging (CXR, CT and ventilation perfusion (V/Q) scans) from January 2020 to August 2020 were included. Distribution, location and pattern of involvement was recorded. Evaluation of the assessors was performed using Fleiss Kappa calculations for review of radiographic findings and qualitative analysis of CT findings.
resultsA total of 681 studies (616 CXRs, 59 CTs, 6 V/Q) from 181 patients were reviewed. The most common chest radiograph finding was bilateral lower lobe predominant diffuse opacification and most common CT pattern being ground glass opacities. Of the CT imaging, 33 were CT Pulmonary Angiograms of which five demonstrated acute pulmonary emboli. There was good inter-rater agreement between radiologists in assessment of imaging appearances on CXR (kappa 0.29-0.73) and CT studies.
conclusionA review of imaging in an Australian tertiary hospital demonstrates similar patterns of COVID-19 infection on chest X-ray and CT imaging when compared to the international population.
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.