ArticleAfrican journal of thoracic and critical care medicine2023
Clinicians' interpretation of ventilation/perfusion lung scan reports: Where are we today?
Article in African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine, 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.
- Bridging the gap: Communicating the results of ventilation: perfusion scans to clinicians.African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinicians' interpretation of lung scan reports will determine which further management decisions are taken when potentially fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) is suspected. Objectives: To assess current referring clinicians' interpretation of the terminology used in ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan reports, whether this interpretation is affected by experience level, and how it affects clinical management decisions. Methods: This was a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. Between September 2020 and May 2021, 300 questionnaires were distributed among clinicians who refer patients for V/Q scans. Results: Of the 162 clinicians who responded, 94% thought that there is >85% likelihood of PE or definitely PE present when a scan is reported as 'high probability of PE'; 87% interpreted 'low probability of PE' as <10% likelihood of PE or definitely no PE present. Overall, >70% of clinicians across all experience levels correctly interpreted the intended meaning of probability categories according to the Modified Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED) II criteria. Of the respondents, 77% agreed that clinically significant PE is ruled out by a normal scan. Further investigation for inconclusive findings, features of parenchymal lung disease and cardiomegaly were selected by 72%, 93% and 98% of clinicians, respectively. Conclusion: The findings of this study regarding high-probability scan results were in line with existing literature on lung scan report interpretation. However, our findings regarding low-probability scan results and negative V/Q scan specificity contrasted with the findings in these articles, suggesting that clinicians are now more familiar with lung scan interpretation guidelines. Experience level did not significantly affect interpretation of reports. Although most clinicians agreed that a negative scan excludes clinically significant PE, two-thirds of them would still subject the patient to further unnecessary investigations to exclude PE. Study synopsis:
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.