ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Retrospective analysis of the sensitivity of reporting of thoracic computed tomography for pleural malignancy: an Australian multi-centre study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
Background: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) is crucial in the early detection of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and has significant impacts on diagnosis, staging and guiding procedural intervention. In real world practice, the sensitivity of CE-CT for MPE is significantly lower than initially described in the literature. We aim to assess the sensitivity of CE-CT reporting in assessment of suspected MPE in a real-world setting. Methods: A multi-centre retrospective review of pleural procedures in the years 2019-2020 at two tertiary centres (John Hunter Hospital, Calvary Mater Hospital) in Newcastle, Australia was performed. Patients with new MPE and a CT performed before histocytological confirmation of malignancy were included. CT reports were reviewed based on the use of pre-determined terminology indicating MPE. Results: A total of 101 patients were included for analysis. Sixty-eight studies were arterial phase, 25 were CT pulmonary angiograms and 2 were delayed venous phase. Seventy-one patients had reports indicating a malignant cause, yielding a sensitivity of 70% [95% confidence interval (CI): 61-78%]. The sensitivity was similar regardless of the contrast phase used. When using only the presence of Leung criteria the overall sensitivity dropped to 42% (95% CI: 32-51%) with a greater decrease seen especially with CT pulmonary angiogram (sensitivity 16%, 95% CI: 6-35%). Conclusions: This is, to our knowledge, the first evaluation of CE-CT use and its sensitivity in MPE assessment outside of Western Europe. This study highlights the limitations of CT in diagnosing MPE and supports early histocytological sampling. Further studies to evaluate the role of CE-CT in the pleural diagnostic pathway are needed.
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.