ArticlePulmonary circulation2025
Quantitative Evaluation of Lung Perfusion by Dynamic Chest Radiography in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: Comparison With Lung Perfusion Scintigraphy.
Article in Pulmonary circulation, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary perfusion assessment is essential for the management of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Lung perfusion scintigraphy and contrast-enhanced CT are occasionally limited by the need for radionuclides or allergy to the contrast agents. Dynamic chest radiography (DCR) can evaluate the pulmonary perfusion non-invasively using conventional X-ray technology. We validated pulmonary perfusion measurements using DCR by comparing them with those obtained using perfusion scintigraphy in CTEPH. Thirty-three patients with CTEPH who underwent both DCR and lung perfusion scintigraphy within 1-month interval from December 2019 to December 2022 were included. DCR was performed with patients in both standing and supine positions. To assess lung perfusion, each lung was divided into six fields (right and left; upper, middle, and lower). The blood flow rates per field were quantified by using analysis software as 100% of the sum of the six sites. The correlation between blood flow rates of each area in DCR and perfusion scintigraphy was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). DCR showed a strong correlation with pulmonary perfusion scintigraphy in both standing (ICC(2,1) = 0.86; confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.89) and supine (ICC(2,1) = 0.82; CI, 0.77-0.86) positions. When analyzed by region, all regions except the left lower lung showed significant correlations with perfusion scintigraphy findings. Intra- and intra-inspector reliabilities at both positions were excellent. The quantitative assessment of lung perfusion using DCR is reliable in patients with CTEPH. However, perfusion in the left lower lung was underestimated using DCR.
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.