Key result
Standardized chest radiograph reading differentiates pulmonary edema etiology with ~88% accuracy.
Observational (n=119)
Blinded observers
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To assess the value of the chest radiograph in differentiating various types of pulmonary edema, we retrospectively analyzed 119 films of patients with pulmonary edema caused by left heart decompensation (group 1;N = 56), renal failure (group 2; N = 19), and lung microvascular injury (group 3; N = 44). Chest radiographs were examined independently by two trained observers, unaware of the clinical diagnosis, according to a standardized reading table. The two observers assigned chest films to the corresponding group with an accuracy of 86% and 90%, respectively. To test the observers' objectivity, we used radiographic findings as input variables for discriminant analysis. Computer-generated numerical functions identified pulmonary edema etiology with an accuracy of 88% when considering the three groups together. When groups were compared as pairs, percentages of correct classification were 91% (group 1 vs. group 2), 93% (group 1 vs. group 3), and 100% (group 2 vs. group 3). Thus, a standardized reading of chest radiographs may be considered a reliable clinical method for identifying pulmonary edema etiology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miniati et al. (1988) conducted an observational in Pulmonary edema (n=119). Standardized reading of chest radiographs and discriminant analysis vs. Clinical diagnosis of pulmonary edema etiology was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy in differentiating pulmonary edema etiology (cardiac, renal, and injury lung edema). Standardized chest radiograph reading identified pulmonary edema etiology with 86% and 90% observer accuracy and 88% accuracy via discriminant analysis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: