ArticleClinical imaging2022
Multireader evaluation of radiologist performance for COVID-19 detection on emergency department chest radiographs.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest radiographs (CXR) are frequently used as a screening tool for patients with suspected COVID-19 infection pending reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results, despite recommendations against this. We evaluated radiologist performance for COVID-19 diagnosis on CXR at the time of patient presentation in the Emergency Department (ED). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe extracted RT-PCR results, clinical history, and CXRs of all patients from a single institution between March and June 2020. 984 RT-PCR positive and 1043 RT-PCR negative radiographs were reviewed by 10 emergency radiologists from 4 academic centers. 100 cases were read by all radiologists and 1927 cases by 2 radiologists. Each radiologist chose the single best label per case: Normal, COVID-19, Other - Infectious, Other - Noninfectious, Non-diagnostic, and Endotracheal Tube. Cases labeled with endotracheal tube (246) or non-diagnostic (54) were excluded. Remaining cases were analyzed for label distribution, clinical history, and inter-reader agreement.
results1727 radiographs (732 RT-PCR positive, 995 RT-PCR negative) were included from 1594 patients (51.2% male, 48.8% female, age 59 ± 19 years). For 89 cases read by all readers, there was poor agreement for RT-PCR positive (Fleiss Score 0.36) and negative (Fleiss Score 0.46) exams. Agreement between two readers on 1638 cases was 54.2% (373/688) for RT-PCR positive cases and 71.4% (679/950) for negative cases. Agreement was highest for RT-PCR negative cases labeled as Normal (50.4%, n = 479). Reader performance did not improve with clinical history or time between CXR and RT-PCR result.
conclusionAt the time of presentation to the emergency department, emergency radiologist performance is non-specific for diagnosing COVID-19.
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.