Observational studyMedicine2025
Differential diagnosis in patients with both features of pneumonia and pulmonary edema on chest computed tomography.
Observational study in Medicine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is a common challenge for pneumonic consolidation and pulmonary edema/congestion to be presented simultaneously on computed tomography. However, there is a lack of research on the clinical features and differential diagnosis of patients suspected of heart failure (HF) and pneumonia (PN). Among patients presenting with dyspnea, chest computed tomography was performed, and those with pneumonia and pulmonary edema interpreted by radiologists were included for analysis. PN, HF, or HF with PN (HFPN) were categorized by the pulmonologist and cardiologist. Clinical features, c-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and troponin I levels were collected. The study included 220 patients over 6 years, among whom 51.8% were ultimately confirmed as HFPN, with HF in 21.8% and PN in 26.4%. The HF group frequently exhibited cardiovascular risk factors, whereas the PN group showed no association with underlying pulmonary conditions. In multivariate analysis, independent biomarkers for HF diagnosis were NT-proBNP and CRP. The NT-proBNP was the only independent negative predictor for PN diagnosis. The combined model of CRP < 91 mg/dL and NT-proBNP > 2677 pg/mL were showed the highest diagnostic value (AUC 0.772, P = .033) for identifying HF. Both the HF-only and HFPN groups had high rates of antibiotic prescription, but this was not associated with in-hospital mortality. In this study, the combination of elevated NT-proBNP and low CRP levels appeared to provide better clinical utility in identifying HF over pneumonia among patients with overlapping radiologic features. However, further validation in diverse populations is warranted.
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.