ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Optimizing prone CT use for suspected interstitial lung abnormalities.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CT quantification of interstitial lung abnormalities: a prospective comparison between supine and prone positions.European radiology · 2026Article
- [Evaluation and clinical management of interstitial lung abnormalities : Position paper of the Austrian Society of Pneumology (ÖGP) and the Austrian Radiological Society (ÖRG) 2026].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe investigated whether supine chest CT alone suffices for diagnosing ILAs, thereby reducing the need for prone chest CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent prone chest CT for suspected ILAs from January 2021 to July 2023, with matching supine CT within 1 year, were retrospectively evaluated. Five multinational thoracic radiologists independently rated ILA suspicion and fibrosis scores (1 to 5-point) and ILA extent (1-100%) using supine CT first, then combined supine-prone CT after a 1-month washout. We categorized ILA suspicion and fibrosis scores into four diagnostic groups; normal, non-fibrotic, indeterminate-type, and fibrotic ILAs. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) of ILA suspicion scores, inter-reader agreement on diagnostic categories, and intra-reader/inter-reader reliability for ILA extent were evaluated.
resultsThis study included 69 patients (mean age 67.2 ± 7.2 years; 36 women), with 23 age- and sex-matched patients in each group: normal, non-fibrotic ILAs, and fibrotic ILAs. The pooled AUC for ILA suspicion and inter-reader agreement on diagnostic categories improved for non-fibrotic ILAs with prone CT (AUC 0.76 to 0.92, p < 0.001; Fleiss kappa 0.25 to 0.51, p = 0.004), but not for fibrotic ILAs (AUC 0.94 to 0.99, p = 0.06; Fleiss kappa 0.63 to 0.72, p = 0.08). ILA extent was 1-2% smaller with prone CT for both ILA types (p < 0.001).
conclusionFor fibrotic ILAs, supine CT alone exhibited substantial diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement, while the diagnosis of non-fibrotic ILAs benefited from adding prone CT. Supine CT alone slightly overestimated extent regardless of ILA type. KEY POINTS: Question Prone CT is recommended when interstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs) are suspected on supine CT, but its benefits remain underexplored. Findings Supine CT alone sufficed for diagnosing fibrotic ILAs, while prone CT improved non-fibrotic ILA diagnosis and reduced extent overestimation for both types. Clinical relevance Omitting prone CT reduces extra time, space, and radiation exposure without compromising the diagnosis of fibrotic ILAs, which have higher rates of progression and mortality risks, enhancing patient comfort and simplifying patient management.
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.