ArticleCureus2025
Dynamic Digital Radiography (DDR) for Pulmonary Blood Flow Assessment After Lung Transplantation: Insights From Two Case Studies.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dynamic digital radiography (DDR) is an innovative imaging modality that enables real-time evaluation of dynamic processes by combining sequential images. DDR can assess pulmonary blood flow by analyzing variations in black and white signal intensities within the lung field. This case series evaluates the utility and limitations of DDR for monitoring pulmonary blood flow and thrombosis in two patients following lung transplantation. DDR findings were compared with those of pulmonary perfusion scintigraphy (PPS), the current gold standard for assessing regional pulmonary perfusion distribution. Case 1 is a male in his 40s who underwent a single (left) lung transplantation. Postoperative DDR indicated pulmonary perfusion distributions between the autologous (right) and transplanted (left) lungs of 46.89% vs. 53.11% at 3.5 months and 38.02% vs. 61.98% at six months. However, PPS indicated markedly different distributions: 15.78% vs. 84.22% at two months and 19.34% vs. 80.66% at six months. Case 2 is a male in his 40s who underwent bilateral sequential lung transplantation. DDR indicated pulmonary perfusion distributions between the right and left transplanted lungs of 51.10% vs. 48.90% at two months and 48.48% vs. 51.52% at six months. In this case, PPS findings were in close agreement: 54.82% vs. 45.18% at two months and 48.70% vs. 51.30% at six months. Contrast-enhanced CT confirmed the absence of thrombosis and flow abnormalities. DDR imaging in lung transplant patients offers a low-radiation and convenient approach for monitoring respiratory function and assessing complications. However, our findings indicate that DDR assessments of pulmonary blood flow do not consistently match those of PPS, the current reference standard. Caution and further investigations regarding the use of DDR are needed, including in the context of thrombosis evaluation.
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.