Journal of critical care · 2024
Assessment of the comparative agreement between chest radiographs and CT scans in intensive care units.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brooks Daniel, Wright Stephen E, Beattie Anna, McAllister Nadia, Anderson Niall H, Roy Alistair I, Gonsalves Philip, Yates Bryan, Graziadio Sara, Mackie Alasdair, Davidson John, Gopal Sandeep Vijaya, Whittle Robert, Zahed Asef, Barton Lorna, Elameer Mathew, Tuckett John, Holmes Rob, Sutcliffe Alexandra, Santamaria Nuria, de Lalouviere Luke la Hausse, Gupta Sanjay, Subramaniam Jeevan, Pearson Janaki A, Brandwood Matthew, Burnham Richard, Rostron Anthony J, Simpson A John
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Chest radiographs in critically ill patients can be difficult to interpret due to technical and clinical factors. We sought to determine the agreement of chest radiographs and CT scans, and the inter-observer variation of chest radiograph interpretation, in intensive care units (ICUs).
METHODS: Chest radiographs and corresponding thoracic computerised tomography (CT) scans (as reference standard) were collected from 45 ICU patients. All radiographs were analysed by 20 doctors (radiology consultants, radiology trainees, ICU consultants, ICU trainees) from 4 different centres, blinded to CT results. Specificity/sensitivity were determined for pleural effusion, lobar collapse and consolidation/atelectasis. Separately, Fleiss' kappa for multiple raters was used to determine inter-observer variation for chest radiographs.
RESULTS: The median sensitivity and specificity of chest radiographs for detecting abnormalities seen on CTs scans were 43.2% and 85.9% respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity for pleural effusion was significantly higher among radiology consultants but no specialty/experience distinctions were observed for specificity. Median inter-observer kappa coefficient among assessors was 0.295 ("fair").
CONCLUSIONS: Chest radiographs commonly miss important radiological features in critically ill patients. Inter-observer agreement in chest radiograph interpretation is only "fair". Consultant radiologists are least likely to miss thoracic radiological abnormalities. The consequences of misdiagnosis by chest radiographs remain to be determined.
METHODS: Chest radiographs and corresponding thoracic computerised tomography (CT) scans (as reference standard) were collected from 45 ICU patients. All radiographs were analysed by 20 doctors (radiology consultants, radiology trainees, ICU consultants, ICU trainees) from 4 different centres, blinded to CT results. Specificity/sensitivity were determined for pleural effusion, lobar collapse and consolidation/atelectasis. Separately, Fleiss' kappa for multiple raters was used to determine inter-observer variation for chest radiographs.
RESULTS: The median sensitivity and specificity of chest radiographs for detecting abnormalities seen on CTs scans were 43.2% and 85.9% respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity for pleural effusion was significantly higher among radiology consultants but no specialty/experience distinctions were observed for specificity. Median inter-observer kappa coefficient among assessors was 0.295 ("fair").
CONCLUSIONS: Chest radiographs commonly miss important radiological features in critically ill patients. Inter-observer agreement in chest radiograph interpretation is only "fair". Consultant radiologists are least likely to miss thoracic radiological abnormalities. The consequences of misdiagnosis by chest radiographs remain to be determined.