187 0

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author이유경-
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-10T15:23:33Z-
dc.date.available2019-12-10T15:23:33Z-
dc.date.issued2018-12-
dc.identifier.citationEUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, v. 52, no. 6, Article no. 1801359en_US
dc.identifier.issn0903-1936-
dc.identifier.issn1399-3003-
dc.identifier.urihttps://erj.ersjournals.com/content/52/6/1801359-
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.hanyang.ac.kr/handle/20.500.11754/120971-
dc.description.abstractRadiological evaluation of incidentally detected lung nodules on computed tomography (CT) influences management. We assessed international radiological variation in 1) pulmonary nodule characterisation; 2) hypothetical guideline-derived management; and 3) radiologists' management recommendations.107 radiologists from 25 countries evaluated 69 CT-detected nodules, recording: 1) first-choice composition (solid, part-solid or ground-glass, with percentage confidence); 2) morphological features; 3) dimensions; 4) recommended management; and 5) decision-influencing factors. We modelled hypothetical management decisions on the 2005 and updated 2017 Fleischner Society, and both liberal and parsimonious interpretations of the British Thoracic Society 2015 guidelines.Overall agreement for first-choice nodule composition was good (Fleiss' kappa=0.65), but poorest for part-solid nodules (weighted 0.62, interquartile range 0.50-0.71). Morphological variables, including spiculation (kappa=0.35), showed poor-to-moderate agreement (kappa=0.23-0.53). Variation in diameter was greatest at key thresholds (5 mm and 6 mm).Agreement for radiologists' recommendations was poor (kappa=0.30); 21% disagreed with the majority. Although agreement within the four guideline-modelled management strategies was good (kappa=0.63-0.73), 5-10% of radiologists would disagree with majority decisions if they applied guidelines strictly. Agreement was lowest for part-solid nodules, while significant measurement variation exists at important size thresholds. These variations resulted in generally good agreement for guideline-modelled management, but poor agreement for radiologists' actual recommendations.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was partly undertaken at University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL), by A. Nair and N. Navani, who received a proportion of funding from the Department of Health National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherEUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTDen_US
dc.subjectPULMONARY NODULESen_US
dc.subjectCTen_US
dc.subjectCANCERen_US
dc.subjectVARIABILITYen_US
dc.subjectGUIDELINESen_US
dc.subjectSTATEMENTen_US
dc.subjectADENOCARCINOMASen_US
dc.subjectPROBABILITYen_US
dc.subjectVOLUMETRYen_US
dc.subjectSOCIETYen_US
dc.titleVariable radiological lung nodule evaluation leads to divergent management recommendationsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.relation.no6-
dc.relation.volume52-
dc.identifier.doi10.1183/13993003.01359-2018-
dc.relation.page1-12-
dc.relation.journalEUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL-
dc.contributor.googleauthorNair, Arjun-
dc.contributor.googleauthorBartlett, Emily C.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWalsh, Simon L. F.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWells, Athol U.-
dc.contributor.googleauthorNavani, Neal-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHardavella, Georgia-
dc.contributor.googleauthorBhalla, Sanjeev-
dc.contributor.googleauthorCalandriello, Lucio-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDevaraj, Anand-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLee, Youkyung-
dc.relation.code2018002774-
dc.sector.campusS-
dc.sector.daehakCOLLEGE OF MEDICINE[S]-
dc.sector.departmentDEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE-
dc.identifier.pidyoukyunglee-
dc.identifier.researcherIDI-7594-2017-
dc.identifier.orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-0939-4574-
Appears in Collections:
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE[S](의과대학) > MEDICINE(의학과) > Articles
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE