Observational studyLa Radiologia medica2024
Impact of an expert-derived, quick hands-on tool on classifying pulmonary hypertension in chest computed tomography: a study on inexperienced readers using RAPID-CT-PH.
Observational study in La Radiologia medica, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Quantification of Longitudinal HRCT Changes During Treatment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: An Exploratory Proof-of-Concept Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test the inter-reader agreement in classifying pulmonary hypertension (PH) on chest contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) between a consensus of two cardio-pulmonary-devoted radiologists (CRc) and inexperienced readers (radiology residents, RRs) when using a CECT-based quick hands-on tool built upon PH imaging literature, i.e., the "Rapid Access and Practical Information Digest on Computed Tomography for PH-RAPID-CT-PH". MATERIAL AND
methodsThe observational study retrospectively included 60 PH patients who underwent CECT between 2015 and 2022. Four RRs independently reviewed all CECTs and classified each case into one of the five PH groups per the 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines. While RR3 and RR4 (RAPID-CT-PH group) used RAPID-CT-PH, RR1 and RR2 (control group) did not. RAPID-CT-PH and control groups' reports were compared with CRc using unweighted Cohen's Kappa (k) statistics. RRs' report completeness and reporting time were also compared using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.
resultsThe inter-reader agreement in classifying PH between the RAPID-CT-PH group and CRc was substantial (k = 0.75 for RR3 and k = 0.65 for RR4); while, it was only moderate for the control group (k = 0.57 for RR1 and k = 0.49 for RR2). Using RAPID-CT-PH resulted in significantly higher report completeness (all p < 0.0001) and significantly lower reporting time (p < 0.0001) compared to the control group.
conclusionRRs using RAPID-CT-PH showed a substantial agreement with CRc on CECT-based PH classification. RAPID-CT-PH improved report completeness and reduced reporting time. A quick hands-on tool for classifying PH on chest CECT may help inexperienced radiologists effectively contribute to the PH multidisciplinary team.
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.