ArticlePolish journal of radiology2024
External validation of the Brain Tumour Reporting and Data System (BT-RADS) in the multidisciplinary managementof post-treatment gliomas.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2024. 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.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To independently and externally validate the Brain Tumour Reporting and Data System (BT-RADS) for post-treatment gliomas and assess interobserver variability. Material and methods: In this retrospective observational study, consecutive MRIs of 100 post-treatment glioma patients were reviewed by two independent radiologists (RD1 and RD2) and assigned a BT-RADS score. Inter-observer agreement statistics were determined by kappa statistics. The BT-RADS-linked management recommendations per score were compared with the multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) decisions. Results: The overall agreement rate between RD1 and RD2 was 62.7% (κ = 0.67). The agreement rate between RD1 and consensus was 83.3% (κ = 0.85), while the agreement between RD2 and consensus was 69.3% (κ = 0.79). Among the radiologists, agreement was highest for score 2 and lowest for score 3b. There was a 97.9% agreement between BT-RADS-linked management recommendations and MDM decisions. Conclusions: BT-RADS scoring led to improved consistency, and standardised language in the structured MRI reporting of post-treatment brain tumours. It demonstrated good overall agreement among the reporting radiologists at both extremes; however, variation rates increased in the middle part of the spectrum. The interpretation categories linked to management decisions showed a near-perfect match with MDM decisions.
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.