Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39728910›Full record

ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2024

Interobserver Variability in Manual Versus Semi-Automatic CT Assessments of Small Lung Nodule Diameter and Volume.

Frida Zacharias, Tony Martin Svahn

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Frida ZachariasDepartment of Imaging and Functional Medicine, Division Diagnostics, Hudiksvall Hospital, Region Gävleborg, SE 824 81 Hudiksvall, Sweden.
Tony Martin SvahnCentre for Research and Development, Uppsala University, Region Gävleborg, SE 801 88 Gävle, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4754-9626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to assess the interobserver variability of semi-automatic diameter and volumetric measurements versus manual diameter measurements for small lung nodules identified on computed tomography scans.

methodsThe radiological patient database was searched for CT thorax examinations with at least one noncalcified solid nodule (∼3-10 mm). Three radiologists with four to six years of experience evaluated each nodule in accordance with the Fleischner Society guidelines using standard diameter measurements, semi-automatic lesion diameter measurements, and volumetric assessments. Spearman's correlation coefficient measured intermeasurement agreement. We used descriptive Bland-Altman plots to visualize agreement in the measured data. Potential discrepancies were analyzed.

resultsWe studied a total of twenty-six nodules. Spearman's test showed that there was a much stronger relationship (

conclusionsSemi-automatic techniques significantly reduced interobserver variability for small solid nodules, which has important implications for diagnostic assessments and screening. Both the semi-automatic diameter and semi-automatic volume measurements showed improvements over the manual measurement approach. Training could further diminish observer variability, given the considerable diversity in the number of adjustments among reviewers.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsObserver VariationSolitary Pulmonary NoduleTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedFemaleHumansLungMaleMiddle AgedRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studiescomputed tomography (CT)interobserver variabilitylung nodule sizesemi-automatic measurement

Identifiers

PMID39728910
PMCPMC11680079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.