新型冠状病毒肺炎胸部ct报告系统的比较

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Uğur Bozlar, Hatice Merve Sahin, Cantürk Tasci, Eda Karaismailoglu, Sümeyra Altekin, Kenan Saglam, Mustafa Tasar
{"title":"新型冠状病毒肺炎胸部ct报告系统的比较","authors":"Uğur Bozlar, Hatice Merve Sahin, Cantürk Tasci, Eda Karaismailoglu, Sümeyra Altekin, Kenan Saglam, Mustafa Tasar","doi":"10.20471/acc.2024.63.03-04.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aimed to compare three commonly used computed tomography (CT) reporting systems for COVID-19, i.e., Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Consensus, British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) Guideline, and Dutch Radiological Society Categorical CT Assesment Scheme: COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS). Three thousand thoracic CT scans taken consecutively because of COVID-19 suspicion, diagnosis or follow-up after admission to our hospital between March 2020 and May 2020 were studied. All CT examinations were assigned to the appropriate groups of the aferomentioned CT reporting systems and these systems were compared with each other. Thorax CT imaging did not reveal any findings indicative of infection (RSNA: 40.7%, BTSI: nonapplicable, and CO-RADS: 40.1%) in the vast majority of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (+) cases in all three reporting systems. The highest number of cases was included in the groups classified as typical/classic/CO-RADS 5 findings in all three reporting systems (RSNA: 213, BSTI: 212, and CO-RADS:101) in COVID-19 diagnosed cases with lung findings. There was no significant difference between PCR (+) and (-) cases with probable COVID-19 infection according to BSTI reporting system and CO-RADS 4 cases (30/23, p=0.381 and 22/19, p=0.245, respectively). In addition, typical thoracic CT findings were observed in RSNA: 70, BSTI: 71, CO-RADS: 71 individuals in all three classifications, but the PCR result was detected negative. When the three reporting systems were compared, we concluded that they did not show distinct advantage to each other and all three ensured that patients were properly classified with similar accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7072,"journal":{"name":"Acta clinica Croatica","volume":"63 3-4","pages":"533-541"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COMPARISON OF CT REPORTING SYSTEMS IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING THORAX COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FOR COVID-19 PNEUMONIA.\",\"authors\":\"Uğur Bozlar, Hatice Merve Sahin, Cantürk Tasci, Eda Karaismailoglu, Sümeyra Altekin, Kenan Saglam, Mustafa Tasar\",\"doi\":\"10.20471/acc.2024.63.03-04.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We aimed to compare three commonly used computed tomography (CT) reporting systems for COVID-19, i.e., Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Consensus, British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) Guideline, and Dutch Radiological Society Categorical CT Assesment Scheme: COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS). Three thousand thoracic CT scans taken consecutively because of COVID-19 suspicion, diagnosis or follow-up after admission to our hospital between March 2020 and May 2020 were studied. All CT examinations were assigned to the appropriate groups of the aferomentioned CT reporting systems and these systems were compared with each other. Thorax CT imaging did not reveal any findings indicative of infection (RSNA: 40.7%, BTSI: nonapplicable, and CO-RADS: 40.1%) in the vast majority of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (+) cases in all three reporting systems. The highest number of cases was included in the groups classified as typical/classic/CO-RADS 5 findings in all three reporting systems (RSNA: 213, BSTI: 212, and CO-RADS:101) in COVID-19 diagnosed cases with lung findings. There was no significant difference between PCR (+) and (-) cases with probable COVID-19 infection according to BSTI reporting system and CO-RADS 4 cases (30/23, p=0.381 and 22/19, p=0.245, respectively). In addition, typical thoracic CT findings were observed in RSNA: 70, BSTI: 71, CO-RADS: 71 individuals in all three classifications, but the PCR result was detected negative. When the three reporting systems were compared, we concluded that they did not show distinct advantage to each other and all three ensured that patients were properly classified with similar accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta clinica Croatica\",\"volume\":\"63 3-4\",\"pages\":\"533-541\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490447/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta clinica Croatica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2024.63.03-04.11\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta clinica Croatica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2024.63.03-04.11","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的目的是比较三种常用的COVID-19计算机断层扫描(CT)报告系统,即北美放射学会(RSNA)共识、英国胸部成像学会(BSTI)指南和荷兰放射学会CT分类评估方案:COVID-19报告和数据系统(CO-RADS)。研究了2020年3月至2020年5月期间因新冠肺炎疑似、诊断或入院后随访而连续进行的3000例胸部CT扫描。所有CT检查被分配到上述CT报告系统的适当组,并相互比较这些系统。在所有三个报告系统中,绝大多数聚合酶链反应(PCR)(+)病例的胸部CT成像未显示任何表明感染的发现(RSNA: 40.7%, BTSI:不适用,CO-RADS: 40.1%)。在所有三个报告系统(RSNA: 213, BSTI: 212, CO-RADS:101)中,被诊断为肺部病变的COVID-19诊断病例中,典型/经典/CO-RADS 5发现组的病例数最多。BSTI报告系统PCR(+)和PCR(-)疑似感染病例与CO-RADS 4例差异无统计学意义(分别为30/23,p=0.381和22/19,p=0.245)。此外,三个分类中RSNA: 70、BSTI: 71、CO-RADS: 71均有典型的胸部CT表现,但PCR结果均为阴性。当三种报告系统进行比较时,我们得出结论,它们彼此之间没有明显的优势,并且所有三种报告系统都确保了患者被正确分类并具有相似的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
COMPARISON OF CT REPORTING SYSTEMS IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING THORAX COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FOR COVID-19 PNEUMONIA.

We aimed to compare three commonly used computed tomography (CT) reporting systems for COVID-19, i.e., Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Consensus, British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) Guideline, and Dutch Radiological Society Categorical CT Assesment Scheme: COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS). Three thousand thoracic CT scans taken consecutively because of COVID-19 suspicion, diagnosis or follow-up after admission to our hospital between March 2020 and May 2020 were studied. All CT examinations were assigned to the appropriate groups of the aferomentioned CT reporting systems and these systems were compared with each other. Thorax CT imaging did not reveal any findings indicative of infection (RSNA: 40.7%, BTSI: nonapplicable, and CO-RADS: 40.1%) in the vast majority of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (+) cases in all three reporting systems. The highest number of cases was included in the groups classified as typical/classic/CO-RADS 5 findings in all three reporting systems (RSNA: 213, BSTI: 212, and CO-RADS:101) in COVID-19 diagnosed cases with lung findings. There was no significant difference between PCR (+) and (-) cases with probable COVID-19 infection according to BSTI reporting system and CO-RADS 4 cases (30/23, p=0.381 and 22/19, p=0.245, respectively). In addition, typical thoracic CT findings were observed in RSNA: 70, BSTI: 71, CO-RADS: 71 individuals in all three classifications, but the PCR result was detected negative. When the three reporting systems were compared, we concluded that they did not show distinct advantage to each other and all three ensured that patients were properly classified with similar accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta clinica Croatica
Acta clinica Croatica 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
38
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Clinica Croatica is a peer reviewed general medical journal that publishes original articles that advance and improve medical science and practice and that serve the purpose of transfer of original and valuable information to journal readers. Acta Clinica Croatica is published in English four times a year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信