1,721,063 research outputs found

    Predictive value of chest CT in patients with cystic fibrosis: A single-center 10-year experience

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to assess the accuracy of one of the most used scoring systems, the Bhalla scoring system, in the detection of lung impairment in patients with cystic fibrosis and in the prediction of cystic fibrosis progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS. From the database of our center, 300 CT examinations performed between 1991 and 2001 were reviewed. Pulmonary function tests performed the same day as radiologic assessment were available. Of this group, 145 examinations were retrospectively included, referring to 87 patients with confirmed cystic fibrosis and a mean age (± SD) of 15.6 ± 8.4 years (range, 9 months-38 years). Thirty patients underwent one CT examination, 56 underwent two examinations, and one patient underwent three examinations. The mean interval between two examinations was 36.5 months. The 145 examinations were independently reviewed by three radiologists who were blinded to the clinical and pulmonary function test results. The CT examinations were assessed using the scoring system proposed by Bhalla and colleagues. RESULTS. CT assessed using the Bhalla scoring system is mildly correlated with functional pulmonary test results and has high interobserver reproducibility. The CT score significantly changed between scans obtained in a mean interval of 36.5 months, whereas functional pulmonary test results did not, suggesting that CT is more sensitive than function tests for detecting small changes. However, the variation in CT scores did not predict progression of functional pulmonary test results or progression of CT findings between scans. CONCLUSION. CT assessment based on the Bhalla scoring system is more sensitive than pulmonary function tests in detecting initial morphologic changes. However, we found no evidence of the predictive value of CT

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore