ArticleJHLT open2025
Detectability of subsegmental lesions in patients with inoperable CTEPH: Comparison between ultra-high-resolution vs. conventional CT.
Article in JHLT open, 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.
- Diagnosing lung cancer invading the pulmonary artery using ultra-low-dose CT pulmonary angiography: a feasibility study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Research advances in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: from pathological mechanisms to multidisciplinary management.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) plays a critical role in guiding balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) for patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). However, conventional CT (cCT) has limited sensitivity in detecting peripheral lesions, which is critical for avoiding complications. This study compared ultra-high-resolution CT (UHRCT; 0.25 mm detector elements) and conventional CT (cCT; 0.6 mm detector elements) in identifying and classifying segmental and subsegmental lesions, using invasive selective angiography during BPA as the reference standard. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 42 patients with newly diagnosed CTEPH who underwent CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with either cCT or UHRCT and subsequently completed BPA. The morphology and location of lesions were independently assessed using selective angiography and CTPA. Sensitivity, specificity, and lesion classification accuracy were assessed using selective angiography as the reference standard. Results: A total of 1687 branches in 42 patients (male/female 11/31, mean age 66 years) were analyzed. The sensitivity and specificity of cCT were 54.6% (95% CI: 48.2-60.8) and 85.2% (95% CI: 75.6-91.4), respectively. In contrast, UHRCT demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity (94.3%, 95% CI: 91.9-96.1) but lower specificity (60.2%, 95% CI: 46.7-72.2). The sensitivity difference was more prominent in subsegmental branches (p for interaction = 0.11). UHRCT more accurately classified lesion types in 83.7% of cases (95% CI: 76.7-88.9), versus 69.1% (95% CI: 58.3-78.1) with cCT. Web lesions remained the most difficult to detect. Conclusion: Higher-spatial-resolution CTPA provides a higher lesion detection sensitivity, particularly in subsegmental branches, and more accurately classified lesion type in patients with CTEPH treated with BPA, potentially aiding procedural planning and guidance.
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.