ArticleEmergency radiology2022
Interobserver agreement of interstitial lung fibrosis Reporting and Data System (ILF-RADS) at high-resolution CT.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the interobserver agreement of interstitial lung fibrosis Reporting and Data System (ILF-RADS) in interpretation and categorization of interstitial lung disease (ILD) at high-resolution CT (HRCT).
methodsRetrospective analysis was performed on 65 consecutive patients (36 male and 29 female), median age 53 years, who were referred to the Radiology Department, Mansoura University, in the period from July 2016 to February 2020. They were expected clinically to have diffuse lung disease and underwent HRCT of the chest. Patients had some investigations like serology, and when required surgical lung biopsy. Image analysis was done by two independent and blinded readers for the pulmonary and extra-pulmonary finding of ILF-RADS. The pulmonary findings were 13 items and extrapulmonary findings were 5 items. The score was 5 types according to ILF-RADS: ILF-RADS 0 (incomplete assessment), ILF-RADS 1 (typical UIP), ILF-RADS 2 (probable UIP), ILF-RADS 3 (indeterminate UIP), ILF-RADS 4 (CT features most consistent with non-UIP diagnosis).
resultsThere was an excellent interobserver agreement of both reviewers for overall ILF-RADS (K = 0.88, P = 0.001) with 95.4% agreement. There was an excellent interobserver agreement for overall pulmonary findings (K = 0.901, 95% CI = 0.877-0.926, P = 0.001), excellent interobserver agreement for seven items including lung volume, traction bronchiectasis, nodules, cysts, consolidation, emphysema, and complications and moderate interobserver agreement for six items including reticulations, honeycomb, ground glass, mosaic attenuation, and axial and zonal distribution. There was excellent interobserver agreement for overall extra-pulmonary findings (K = 0.902, 95% CI = 0.852-0.952, P = 0.001), excellent interobserver agreement for four items including mediastinum, pleura, visible abdomen, and soft tissue and bone and moderate interobserver agreement for trachea and main bronchi. There was excellent interobserver agreement for ILF-RADS score: ILF-RADS 1 (K = 0.84, P = 0.001), ILF-RADS 3 (K = 0.881, P = 0.001), and ILF-RADS 4 (K = 0.878, 95% CI = 0.743-1.0, P = 0.001) and moderate interobserver agreement for ILF-RADS 2 (K = 0.784, P = 0.001).
conclusionILF-RADS is a reliable reporting system which can be routinely performed for standard interpretation of ILD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34705193What 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.