ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Development and assessment of the AE-RADS standardized grid for specifically evaluating adverse events in diagnostic radiology and teleradiology.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA specific grid for analyzing and grading adverse events in diagnostic radiology is lacking. In France, the standard HAS grid, a generic 5-point scale adapted from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAEs), is criticized for limited applicability in radiology. Our aim was to develop and evaluate a radiology-specific AE grid (AE-RADS) tailored to diagnostic and teleradiological practices and to compare its performance against the CTCAEs-based HAS grid regarding inter-observer reproducibility and agreement with expert consensus.
methodsAE-RADS, structured as a decision tree with 90 items, was developed by four senior radiologists with extensive AE experience. To assess it, 100 AE cases from early 2022 were reviewed by two radiologists and two non-physician support members, all blinded to the initial AE grading. Observers rated AEs using both the HAS and AE-RADS grids, comparing severity, AE frequency per patient, sources, and types for inter-observer reproducibility and expert agreement. Tests included intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), Fleiss Kappa and Krippendorff alpha for reproducibility and McNemar test for comparing agreement with consensus.
resultsAmong 100 patients (49 women, median age 66.9 years), 104 AEs were identified. AE-RADS achieved higher inter-observer reproducibility for AE frequency (ICC = 0.690 vs. 0.642 with HAS) and for grading the most serious AE (Krippendorff alpha = 0.519 vs. 0.506 with HAS). Agreement with expert consensus was significantly greater with AE-RADS (63-81%) than with HAS (25-47%; P-value range: 0.0001-0.0051).
conclusionAE-RADS shows improved, though still imperfect, agreement between evaluators and experts, supporting its potential for more precise AE assessment in diagnostic imaging.
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.