IntroductionEarly differentiation between emergency department (ED) patients with and without corona virus disease (COVID-19) is very important. Chest CT scan may be helpful in early diagnosing of COVID-19. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of CT using RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 as reference standard and investigated reasons for discordant results between the two tests. MethodsIn this prospective single centre study in the Netherlands, all adult symptomatic ED patients had both a CT scan and a PCR upon arrival at the ED. CT results were compared with PCR test(s). Diagnostic accuracy was calculated. Discordant results were investigated using discharge diagnoses. ResultsBetween March 13 th and March 24 th 2020, 193 symptomatic ED patients were included. In total, 43.0% of patients had a positive PCR and 56.5% a positive CT, resulting in a sensitivity of 89.2%, specificity 68.2%, likelihoodratio (LR) + 2.81 and LR-0.16. Sensitivity was higher in patients with high risk pneumonia (CURB-65 score ≥3; n=17, 100%) and with sepsis (SOFA score ≥2; n=137, 95.5%).Of the 35 patients (31.8%) with a suspicious CT and a negative PCR, 9 had another respiratory viral pathogen, and in 7 patients, COVID-19 was considered likely. One of nine patients with a non-suspicious CT and a positive PCR had developed symptoms within 48 hours before scanning. DiscussionThe accuracy of chest CT in symptomatic ED patients is high, but used as a single diagnostic test, CT can not safely diagnose or exclude COVID-19. However, CT can be used as a quick first screening tool.
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here:
Structured reporting is advocated as a means of improving reporting in radiology to the ultimate benefit of both radiological and clinical practice. Several large initiatives are currently evaluating its potential. However, with numerous characterizations of the term in circulation, “structured reporting” has become ambiguous and is often confused with “standardization,” which may hamper proper evaluation and implementation in clinical practice. This paper provides an overview of interpretations of structured reporting and proposes a clear definition that differentiates structured reporting from standardization. Only a clear uniform definition facilitates evidence-based implementation, enables evaluation of its separate components, and supports (meta-)analyses of literature reports.
Chronic patients must carry out a rigorous control of diverse factors in their lives. Diet, sport activity, medical analysis or blood glucose levels are some of them. This is a hard task, because some of these controls are performed very often, for instance some diabetics measure their glucose levels several times every day, or patients with chronic renal disease, a progressive loss in renal function, should strictly control their blood pressure and diet. In order to facilitate this task to both the patient and the physician, we have developed a web application for chronic diseases control which we have particularized to diabetes. This system, called glUCModel, improves the communication and interaction between patients and doctors, and eventually the quality of life of the former. Through a web application, patients can upload their personal and medical data, which are stored in a centralized database. In this way, doctors can consult this information and have a better control over patient records. glUCModel also presents three novelties in the disease management: a recommender system, an e-learning course and a module for automatic generation of glucose levels model. The recommender system uses Case Based Reasoning. It provides automatic recommendations to the patient, based on the recorded data and physician preferences, to improve their habits and knowledge about the disease. The e-learning course provides patients a space to consult information about the illness, and also to assess their own knowledge about the disease. Blood glucose levels are modeled by means of evolutionary computation, allowing to predict glucose levels using particular features of each patient. glUCModel was developed as a system where a web layer allows the access of the users from any device connected to the Internet, like desktop computers, tablets or mobile phones.
published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User
Objectives Structured reporting (SR) in radiology reporting is suggested to be a promising tool in clinical practice. In order to implement such an emerging innovation, it is necessary to verify that radiology reporting can benefit from SR. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to explore the level of evidence of structured reporting in radiology. Additionally, this review provides an overview on the current status of SR in radiology. Methods A narrative systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the syntax ‘radiol*’ AND ‘structur*’ AND ‘report*’. Structured reporting was divided in SR level 1, structured layout (use of templates and checklists), and SR level 2, structured content (a drop-down menu, point-and-click or clickable decision trees). Two reviewers screened the search results and included all quantitative experimental studies that discussed SR in radiology. A thematic analysis was performed to appraise the evidence level. Results The search resulted in 63 relevant full text articles out of a total of 8561 articles. Thematic analysis resulted in 44 SR level 1 and 19 level 2 reports. Only one paper was scored as highest level of evidence, which concerned a double cohort study with randomized trial design. Conclusion The level of evidence for implementing SR in radiology is still low and outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Key Points • Structured reporting is increasingly being used in radiology, especially in abdominal and neuroradiological CT and MRI reports. • SR can be subdivided into structured layout (SR level 1) and structured content (SR level 2), in which the first is defined as being a template in which the reporter has to report; the latter is an IT-based manner in which the content of the radiology report can be inserted and displayed into the report. • Despite the extensive amount of research on the subject of structured reporting, the level of evidence is low.
Background In the era of datafication, it is important that medical data are accurate and structured for multiple applications. Especially data for oncological staging need to be accurate to stage and treat a patient, as well as population-level surveillance and outcome assessment. To support data extraction from free-text radiological reports, Dutch natural language processing (NLP) algorithm was built to quantify T-stage of pulmonary tumors according to the tumor node metastasis (TNM) classification. This structuring tool was translated and validated on English radiological free-text reports. A rule-based algorithm to classify T-stage was trained and validated on, respectively, 200 and 225 English free-text radiological reports from diagnostic computed tomography (CT) obtained for staging of patients with lung cancer. The automated T-stage extracted by the algorithm from the report was compared to manual staging. A graphical user interface was built for training purposes to visualize the results of the algorithm by highlighting the extracted concepts and its modifying context. Results Accuracy of the T-stage classifier was 0.89 in the validation set, 0.84 when considering the T-substages, and 0.76 when only considering tumor size. Results were comparable with the Dutch results (respectively, 0.88, 0.89 and 0.79). Most errors were made due to ambiguity issues that could not be solved by the rule-based nature of the algorithm. Conclusions NLP can be successfully applied for staging lung cancer from free-text radiological reports in different languages. Focused introduction of machine learning should be introduced in a hybrid approach to improve performance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.