ArticleCureus2022
Concordance Between Resident and Attending Radiologist in Reporting Pneumothorax on Intensive Care Unit and Emergency Room Chest Radiographs.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Pneumothorax is a common medical emergency and has potentially life-threatening consequences, so it is important for radiology residents and consultants to know its radiographic appearance so that timely diagnosis and appropriate management can be done. Patients with pneumothorax have nonspecific complaints, and clinical examinations are not confirmatory. The chest X-ray is easily available and has high accuracy in the detection of pneumothorax. The aim of this study is to determine the agreement between the on-call radiology resident and the attending radiologist in the diagnosis of pneumothorax on chest radiographs. Materials and methods This cross-sectional study was performed in the Department of Radiology at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi. After approval from the ethical review committee (ERC), the study was carried out. A total of 174 patients were included in the study. The resident interpreting the radiograph commented on the pneumothorax and recorded it on the "Comments" section of the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Further entries were made in the department's "Panic Logbook." Subsequently, the final report by the attending radiologist was tallied, and the decision of both the resident and the attending radiologist regarding the presence or absence of pneumothorax was compared for interobserver agreement. Results Of the 174 patients, 139 (79.9%) were male and 35 (20.1%) were female. The mean age of the patients was 45.6 ± 12.4 years. Pneumothorax was reported by the resident in 164 (94.25%) cases, while the attending radiologist reported it in 167 (96%) cases. The remaining 4% of cases were ultimately diagnosed on a CT scan of the chest performed at the request of the primary team; they were too small to be detected on a chest radiograph. The most common side involved was the right side, with 112 (64.4%) cases, followed by the left side with 55 (31.6%) and both sides with five (2.9%), while in two cases, pneumothorax was not reported by the resident and the attending radiologist. The position of the pneumothorax was as follows: apex in 80 (46%), base in 56 (32.2%), and along the lateral border of the lung in 93 (53.4%). Concordance between the resident and the radiologist was found to be 92.5% (kappa = 0.20; p = 0.008). Stratification for age, gender, the position of pneumothorax, and the level of residency was also carried out. Conclusion In our setting, there was a high level of agreement (92.5%) between the resident and the attending radiologist in reporting pneumothorax on chest radiographs (kappa = 0.20; p = 0.008).
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.