ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Use of reporting templates for chest radiographs in a coronavirus disease 2019 context: measuring concordance of radiologists with three international templates.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Reporting templates for chest radiographs (CXRs) for patients presenting or being clinically managed for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] has attracted advocacy from international radiology societies. We aim to explore the effectiveness and useability of three international templates through the concordance of, and between, radiologists reporting on the presence and severity of COVID-19 on CXRs. Approach: Seventy CXRs were obtained from a referral hospital, 50 from patients with COVID-19 (30 rated "classic" COVID-19 appearance and 20 "indeterminate") and 10 "normal" and 10 "alternative pathology" CXRs. The recruited radiologists were assigned to three test sets with the same CXRs but with different template orders. Each radiologist read their test set three times and assigned a classification to the CXR using the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Radiology (RANZCR), British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI), and Modified COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (Dutch; mCO-RADS) templates. Inter-reader variability and intra-reader variability were measured using Fleiss' kappa coefficient. Results: Twelve Australian radiologists participated. The BSTI template had the highest inter-reader agreement (0.46; "moderate" agreement), followed by RANZCR (0.45) and mCO-RADS (0.32). Concordance was driven by strong agreement in "normal" and "alternative" classifications and was lowest for "indeterminate." General consistency was observed across classifications and templates, with intra-reader variability ranging from "good" to "very good" for COVID-19 CXRs (0.61), "normal" CXRs (0.76), and "alternative" (0.68). Conclusions: Reporting templates may be useful in reducing variation among radiology reports, with intra-reader variability showing promise. Feasibility and implementation require a wider approach including referring and treating doctors plus the development of training packages for radiologists specific to the template being used.
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.