scholarly journals Radiological Society of North America Expert Consensus Statement on Reporting Chest CT Findings Related to COVID-19. Endorsed by the Society of Thoracic Radiology, the American College of Radiology, and RSNA

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
Radiological Society ◽  
Ct Findings

scholarly journals RSNA Expert Consensus Statement on Reporting Chest CT Findings Related to COVID-19: Interobserver Agreement Between Chest Radiologists

2020 ◽  
pp. 084653712093832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Byrne ◽  
Siobhan B. O’Neill ◽  
Nestor L. Müller ◽  
C. Isabela Silva Müller ◽  
John P. Walsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Radiological Society ◽  
Ct Findings ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Ct Studies

Purpose: To assess the interobserver variability between chest radiologists in the interpretation of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) expert consensus statement reporting guidelines in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in a setting with limited reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing availability. Methods: Chest computed tomography (CT) studies in 303 consecutive patients with suspected COVID-19 were reviewed by 3 fellowship-trained chest radiologists. Cases were assigned an impression of typical, indeterminate, atypical, or negative for COVID-19 pneumonia according to the RSNA expert consensus statement reporting guidelines, and interobserver analysis was performed. Objective CT features associated with COVID-19 pneumonia and distribution of findings were recorded. Results: The Fleiss kappa for all observers was almost perfect for typical (0.815), atypical (0.806), and negative (0.962) COVID-19 appearances ( P < .0001) and substantial (0.636) for indeterminate COVID-19 appearance ( P < .0001). Using Cramer V analysis, there were very strong correlations between all radiologists’ interpretations, statistically significant for all (typical, indeterminate, atypical, and negative) COVID-19 appearances ( P < .001). Objective CT imaging findings were recorded in similar percentages of typical cases by all observers. Conclusion: The RSNA expert consensus statement on reporting chest CT findings related to COVID-19 demonstrates substantial to almost perfect interobserver agreement among chest radiologists in a relatively large cohort of patients with clinically suspected COVID-19. It therefore serves as a reliable reference framework for radiologists to accurately communicate their level of suspicion based on the presence of evidence-based objective findings.

scholarly journals RSNA and BSTI grading systems of COVID-19 pneumonia: comparison of the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyhmus Kavak ◽  
Recai Duymus
Keyword(s):  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
British Society ◽  
Thoracic Imaging ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Ct Findings ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Good Agreement

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Expert Consensus Statement Related to Chest CT Findings in COVID-19 Versus CO-RADS: Comparison of Reporting System Performance Among Chest Radiologists and End-User Preference

2020 ◽  
pp. 084653712096891
Author(s):  
Siobhan B. O’ Neill ◽  
Danielle Byrne ◽  
Nestor L. Müller ◽  
Sabeena Jalal ◽  
William Parker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Observer Agreement ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
User Preference ◽  
End User ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Reporting Systems

Purpose: The RSNA expert consensus statement and CO-RADS reporting system assist radiologists in describing lung imaging findings in a standardized manner in patients under investigation for COVID-19 pneumonia and provide clarity in communication with other healthcare providers. We aim to compare diagnostic performance and inter-/intra-observer among chest radiologists in the interpretation of RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems and assess clinician preference. Methods: Chest CT scans of 279 patients with suspected COVID-19 who underwent RT-PCR testing were retrospectively and independently examined by 3 chest radiologists who assigned interpretation according to the RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems. Inter-/intra-observer analysis was performed. Diagnostic accuracy of both reporting systems was calculated. 60 clinicians participated in a survey to assess end-user preference of the reporting systems. Results: Both systems demonstrated almost perfect inter-observer agreement (Fleiss kappa 0.871, P < 0.0001 for RSNA; 0.876, P < 0.0001 for CO-RADS impressions). Intra-observer agreement between the 2 scoring systems using the equivalent categories was almost perfect (Fleiss kappa 0.90-0.92, P < 0.001). Positive predictive values were high, 0.798-0.818 for RSNA and 0.891-0.903 CO-RADS. Negative predictive value were similar, 0.573-0.585 for RSNA and 0.573-0.58 for CO-RADS. Specificity differed between the 2 systems, 68-73% for CO-RADS and 52-58% for RSNA with superior specificity of CO-RADS. Of 60 survey participants, the majority preferred the RSNA reporting system rather than CO-RADS for all options provided (66.7-76.7%; P < 0.05). Conclusions: RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems are consistent and reproducible with near perfect inter-/intra-observer agreement and excellent positive predictive value. End-users preferred the reporting language in the RSNA system.

RSNA: Tanz der Giganten

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (01) ◽  
pp. 38-41
Author(s):  
Kirsten Gaede
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Radiological Society

Was für Romantiker Venedig, ist für Radiologen Chicago: Sie müssen den Kongress der Radiological Society of North America gesehen haben, zumindest einmal im Leben – die monumentalen Ausstellungshallen, die riesigen, weit oben in der Luft schwebenden Logos der Unternehmen, die uferlosen, dicht gedrängten Stände, das internationale Publikum.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document