ArticleClinical imaging2023
Radiologic reporting of MRI-proven thoracolumbar epidural metastases on body CT: 12-Year single-institution experience.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesMetastatic epidural masses are an important radiological finding. The purpose of this study is to determine factors associated with non-reporting of thoracolumbar epidural metastases on body CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a study population of 166 patients from a single institution over a 12-year period, 293 body CT examinations were identified which were performed within 30 days before or after a spine MRI diagnosis of epidural metastasis. Associations were sought between patient diagnosis, CT examination characteristics, reporting radiologist (n = 17), and lesion characteristics with respect to whether an epidural metastasis was reported on CT.
resultsIn retrospective consensus review comprised of 3 radiologists, epidural metastases reported on spine MRI were clearly visible in 80.5% (236/293) of body CT examinations, however 65.3% (154/236) of the body CT reports omitted reporting their presence, even in cases where there was a preceding MRI diagnosis within 30 days (65.4%, 74/113). The identity of the reporting radiologist was statistically significantly associated with the accurate diagnostic reporting of epidural metastasis on body CT (p = 0.04). The only lesion features which were statistically significantly associated with CT reporting were lesion volume (p = 0.03) on noncontrast CT, and lesion volume (p = 0.006) and percentage of spinal canal stenosis (p = 0.001) on intravenous contrast-enhanced CT. The presence or absence of intravenous contrast was not significantly associated with CT reporting (p = 1.0).
conclusionUsing spine MRI as the reference standard for the presence of epidural tumor, the majority of body CT reports omit describing thoracolumbar epidural metastases which are clearly visible in retrospect.
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.