Trial reportPloS one2021
Time efficiency and reliability of established computed tomographic obstruction scores in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Simplified CT Score for Thrombus Burden in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Clinical Correlation and Reproducibility.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Systemic Inflammation Response Index Predicts Thrombolytic Therapy Requirement in Intermediate-High Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of Clot Burden and Distribution on Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Patients.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- The effect of rivaroxaban as an anticoagulant therapy for acute pulmonary embolism and the predictive role of vascular endothelial markers in assessing anticoagulant efficacy before treatment.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Discrimination of the acute pulmonary embolism subtypes based on the novel MAPH score.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAcute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening disease with a high mortality. Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is used in clinical routine for diagnosis of PE. Many pulmonary obstruction scores were proposed to aid in stratifying clinical course of PE. The purpose of the present study was to compare common pulmonary obstruction scores in PE in regard of time efficiency and interreader agreement based upon a representative patient sample.
methodsOverall, 50 patients with acute PE were included in this single center, retrospective analysis. Two readers scored the CT images blinded to each other and assessed the scores proposed by Mastora et al., Qanadli et al., Ghanima et al. and Kirchner et al. The required time was assessed of each reading for scoring.
resultsFor reader 1, Mastora score took the longest time duration, followed by Kirchner score, Qanadli score and finally Ghanima score (every test, p<0.0001). The interreader variability was excellent for all scores with no significant differences between them. In the Spearman's correlation analysis strong correlations were identified between the scores of Mastora, Qanadli and Kirchner, whereas Ghanima score was only moderately correlated with the other scores. There was a weak correlation between time duration and Mastora score (r = 0.35, p = 0.014). For the Ghanima score, a significant inverse correlation was found (r = -0.67, p<0.0001).
conclusionFor the investigated obstruction scores, there are significant differences in regard of time consumption with no relevant differences in regard of interreader variability in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Mastora score requires the most time effort, whereas the score by Ghanima the least time.
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.