Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36181041›Full record

ArticleMedicine2022

Perfusion-only imaging in pregnant women: A comparative reader study with implications for practice patterns.

Jennifer A Schroeder, Quy Cao, Vlasios S Sotirchos, Jennifer A Gillman, Thomas Anderson, Stamatoula Pilati, Jacob G Dubroff, Michael Farwell, Andrew Kozlov, Katrina Korhonen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jennifer A SchroederDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3346-4736
Quy CaoDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, & Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Vlasios S SotirchosInterventional Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Jennifer A GillmanDepartment of Radiology, Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, Rockville, MD, USA.
Thomas AndersonDepartment of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Stamatoula PilatiDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cook County Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jacob G DubroffDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michael FarwellDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Andrew KozlovRadiology Associates of Florida & the University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Katrina KorhonenRadiology Partners, Houston, TX, USA.
Daniel A PrymaDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Austin R PantelDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study seeks to understand the value of ventilation imaging in pregnant patients imaged for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Ventilation-perfusion (VQ) scans in this high-risk population were compared to ventilation-only scans. We hypothesize that in this relatively healthy population, the exclusion of ventilation scans will not impact the rate of scans interpreted as positive. This retrospective blinded comparative reader study on collated VQ scans performed on pregnant patients in the course of routine clinical care in a > 5 year period (03/2012 to 07/2017). Each set of VQ and perfusion only (Q) studies were reviewed by 8 readers (4 nuclear radiology fellows and 4 nuclear medicine faculty) in random order; the Q scans simply omitted the ventilation images. Readers recorded each study as PE, no PE, or non-diagnostic (prospective investigative study of acute PE diagnosis classifications). Logistic mixed effects models were used to test the association between scan type (VQ vs Q). 203 pairs of studies in 197 patients were included (6 patients had 2 scans). Subjects ranged from 14 to 45 years of age, with a median 28 years. A significant association between scan type and positive/negative classification. Q-scans received more positive classifications than VQ-scans (median of 7.6% vs 6.7%). No association was seen between scan type and positive/indeterminate classification, nor between scan type and negative/indeterminate classification. The exclusion of ventilation images in VQ-scans was associated with a higher rate of positive studies, but this difference was small (<1%). Given the overwhelmingly normal percentage of Q-exams (>90% in our study), and the benefits of omitting ventilation imaging, perfusion-only imaging should be considered a reasonable option for imaging the pregnant patient to exclude PE.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeoplePulmonary EmbolismAdultFemaleHumansPerfusionPregnancyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesVentilation-Perfusion Ratio

Identifiers

PMID36181041
PMCPMC9524957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.