ArticleBJR open2022
The reproducibility of manual RV/LV ratio measurement on CT pulmonary angiography.
Article in BJR open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated right ventricle-to-left ventricle diameter ratio predicts ICU stay for acute pulmonary embolism on CTPA examinations in the emergency department.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of Right Heart Dysfunction in Pulmonary Embolism: Current Insights and Clinical Perspectives.Cureus · 2026Review
- Accuracy of Medical Student Measurements of CT Right-to-Left Ventricular Diameter in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction carries elevated risk in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). An increased ratio between the size of the right and left ventricles (RV/LV ratio) is a biomarker of RV dysfunction. This study evaluated the reproducibility of RV/LV ratio measurement on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Methods: 20 inpatient CTPA scans performed to assess for acute PE were retrospectively identified from a tertiary UK centre. Each scan was evaluated by 14 radiologists who provided a qualitative overall opinion on the presence of RV dysfunction and measured the RV/LV ratio. Using a threshold of 1.0, the RV/LV ratio measurements were classified as positive (≥1.0) or negative (<1.0) for RV dysfunction. Interobserver agreement was quantified using the Fleiss κ and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Qualitative opinion of RV dysfunction showed weak agreement (κ = 0.42, 95% CI 0.37-0.46). The mean RV/LV ratio measurement for all cases was 1.28 ± 0.68 with significant variation between reporters ( Conclusion: Both qualitative opinion and quantitative manual RV/LV ratio measurement show poor agreement for identifying RV dysfunction on CTPA. Advances in knowledge: Caution should be exerted if using manual RV/LV ratio measurements to inform clinical risk stratification and management decisions.
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.