Associating a standardized reporting tool for chest radiographs with clinical complications in pediatric acute chest syndrome

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Acute chest syndrome (ACS) is an important cause of morbidity in sickle cell disease (SCD). A standardized tool for reporting chest radiographs in pediatric SCD patients did not previously exist. Objective To analyze the interobserver agreement among pediatric radiologists' interpretations for pediatric ACS chest radiographs utilizing a standardized reporting tool. We also explored the association of radiographic findings with ACS complications. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of pediatric ACS admissions from a single institution in 2019. ICD‐10 codes identified 127 ACS admissions. Two radiologists independently interpreted the chest radiographs utilizing a standardized reporting tool, a third radiologist adjudicated discrepancies, and κ analysis assessed interobserver agreement. Clinical outcomes were correlated with chest radiograph findings utilizing Pearsons' χ2, t tests, and Mann–Whitney U tests. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results Interobserver agreement was moderate to near‐perfect across variables, with κ analysis showing near‐perfect agreement for opacity reported in the right upper lobe (0.84), substantial agreement for right lower lobe (0.63), and vertebral bony changes (0.72), with moderate agreement for all other reported variables. On the initial chest radiograph, an opacity located in the left lower lobe (LLL) correlated with pediatric intensive care unit transfer (p = .03). Pleural effusion on the initial chest radiograph had a 3.98 OR (95% CI: 1.35–11.74) of requiring blood products and a 10.67 OR (95% CI: 3.62–31.39) for noninvasive ventilation. Conclusion The standardized reporting tool showed moderate to near‐perfect agreement between radiologists. LLL opacity, and pleural effusion were associated with increased risk of ACS complications.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.