Selected article for: "consensus expert guidance statement and expert guidance"

Author: Kavak, Seyhmus; Duymus, Recai
Title: RSNA and BSTI grading systems of COVID-19 pneumonia: comparison of the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement
  • Cord-id: b3bfxtz2
  • Document date: 2021_10_4
  • ID: b3bfxtz2
    Snippet: BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the performance and interobservers agreement of cases with findings on chest CT based on the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guideline statement of COVID-19 and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) expert consensus statement. METHODS: In this study, 903 patients who had admitted to the emergency department with a pre-diagnosis of COVID-19 between 1 and 18 July 2020 and had chest CT. Two radiologists classified the chest CT findings a
    Document: BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the performance and interobservers agreement of cases with findings on chest CT based on the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guideline statement of COVID-19 and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) expert consensus statement. METHODS: In this study, 903 patients who had admitted to the emergency department with a pre-diagnosis of COVID-19 between 1 and 18 July 2020 and had chest CT. Two radiologists classified the chest CT findings according to the RSNA and BSTI consensus statements. The performance, sensitivity and specificity values of the two classification systems were calculated and the agreement between the observers was compared by using kappa analysis. RESULTS: Considering RT-PCR test result as a gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were significantly higher for the two observers according to the BSTI guidance statement and the RSNA expert consensus statement (83.3%, 89.7%, 89.0%; % 81.2,% 89.7,% 88.7, respectively). There was a good agreement in the PCR positive group (κ: 0.707; p < 0.001 for BSTI and κ: 0.716; p < 0.001 for RSNA), a good agreement in the PCR negative group (κ: 0.645; p < 0.001 for BSTI and κ: 0.743; p < 0.001 for RSNA) according to the BSTI and RSNA classification between the two radiologists. CONCLUSION: As a result, RSNA and BSTI statement provided reasonable performance and interobservers agreement in reporting CT findings of COVID-19. However, the number of patients defined as false negative and indeterminate in both classification systems is at a level that cannot be neglected. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12880-021-00668-3.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • accuracy npv and admission chest ct: 1
    • accuracy npv ppv and admission chest: 1
    • accuracy npv ppv and admission chest ct: 1
    • accuracy npv ppv specificity and admission chest: 1
    • accuracy npv ppv specificity and admission chest ct: 1
    • accuracy npv ppv specificity sensitivity and admission chest: 1
    • accuracy npv ppv specificity sensitivity and admission chest ct: 1
    • accuracy npv ppv specificity sensitivity and low standard: 1
    • accurate identification and low number: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • accurate identification and low standard: 1
    • accurate reliable and admission chest: 1
    • accurate reliable and admission chest ct: 1
    • accurate reliable and low number: 1
    • acid amplification test and additional file: 1
    • additional file and admission chest: 1, 2
    • additional file and low number: 1, 2
    • admission chest and lobar pneumonia: 1
    • admission chest ct and lobar pneumonia: 1