Search

Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis is a clinically important disease with an estimated 340,000–522,000 persons living with the disease and 70,000 being diagnosed annually. The radiographic diagnosis remains a pivotal part of recognizing the disease due to its protean clinical manifestations. As physicians are sensitized to this disease, a greater proportion of patients are being diagnosed with mild to moderate bronchiectasis. Despite the established use of CT chest as the main tool for making a radiologic diagnosis of bronchiectasis, the literature supporting the process of making that diagnosis is somewhat sparse. Concurrently, there has been an increased trend to have Web-based radiologic tutorials due to its convenience, the ability of the learner to set the pace of learning and the reduced cost compared to in-person learning. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this trend. We wanted to look carefully at the effect of a Web-based training session on interrater reliability. Agreement was calculated as percentages and kappa and prevalence adjusted kappa calculated. We found that a single Web-based training session had little effect on the variability and accuracy of diagnosis of bronchiectasis. Larger studies are needed in this area with multiple training sessions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The term severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) encompasses a heterogeneous group of respiratory illnesses. Grading the severity of SARI is currently reliant on indirect disease severity measures such as respiratory and heart rate, and the need for oxygen or intensive care. With the lungs being the primary organ system involved in SARI, chest radiographs (CXRs) are potentially useful for describing disease severity. Our objective was to develop and validate a SARI CXR severity scoring system. Methods: We completed validation within an active SARI surveillance project, with SARI defined using the World Health Organization case definition of an acute respiratory infection with a history of fever, or measured fever of ≥ 38 °C; and cough; and with onset within the last 10 days; and requiring hospital admission. We randomly selected 250 SARI cases. Admission CXR findings were categorized as: 1 = normal; 2 = patchy atelectasis and/or hyperinflation and/or bronchial wall thickening; 3 = focal consolidation; 4 = multifocal consolidation; and 5 = diffuse alveolar changes. Initially, four radiologists scored CXRs independently. Subsequently, a pediatrician, physician, two residents, two medical students, and a research nurse independently scored CXR reports. Inter-observer reliability was determined using a weighted Kappa (κ) for comparisons between radiologists; radiologists and clinicians; and clinicians. Agreement was defined as moderate (κ > 0.4-0.6), good (κ > 0.6-0.8) and very good (κ > 0.8-1.0). Results: Agreement between the two pediatric radiologists was very good (κ = 0.83, 95 % CI 0.65-1.00) and between the two adult radiologists was good (κ = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.57-0. 93). Agreement of the clinicians with the radiologists was moderate-to-good (pediatrician:κ = 0.65; pediatric resident:κ = 0.69; physician:κ = 0.68; resident:κ = 0.67; research nurse:κ = 0.49, medical students: κ = 0.53 and κ = 0.56). Agreement between clinicians was good-to-very good (pediatrician vs. physician:κ = 0.85; vs. pediatric resident:κ = 0.81; vs. medicine resident:κ = 0.76; vs. research nurse:κ = 0.75; vs. medical students:κ = 0.63 and 0.66). Following review of discrepant CXR report scores by clinician pairs, κ values for radiologist-clinician agreement ranged from 0.59 to 0.70 and for clinician-clinician agreement from 0.97 to 0.99. Conclusions: This five-point CXR scoring tool, suitable for use in poorly- and well-resourced settings and by clinicians of varying experience levels, reliably describes SARI severity. The resulting numerical data enables epidemiological comparisons of SARI severity between different countries and settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]