ArticleEuropean radiology2026
CT quantification of interstitial lung abnormalities: a prospective comparison between supine and prone positions.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo prospectively evaluate positional variability in quantitative CT (qCT)-derived measurements of interstitial lung abnormality (ILA) using the same-day supine and prone CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this prospective study (February 2024-February 2025), participants with ILA underwent sequential non-contrast supine and prone CT scans using identical acquisition parameters. A commercially available deep learning-based software quantified fibrotic (reticulation and honeycombing) and nonfibrotic (ground-glass opacity) ILA components in accordance with Fleischner Society definitions. qCT differences between supine and prone measurements were assessed using paired t tests, Bland-Altman analysis with 95% limits of agreement (LOA), and concordance correlation coefficients (CCC).
resultsOf 47 consented participants, 38 (mean age, 70.9 ± 6.4 years; 27 men) were included in the final analysis. Mean total ILA extent was greater on supine than on prone scans (1.76% vs 1.39%, p = 0.02), largely due to a greater extent of fibrotic ILAs on supine images (1.43% vs 1.12%, p = 0.007). The 95% LOA between supine and prone scans were -1.49% to 2.23% for total ILA extent, -0.97% to 1.58% for the fibrotic component, and -0.89% to 1.03% for the nonfibrotic component. Agreement between positions was moderate for the fibrotic component (CCC = 0.770), and poor for the nonfibrotic component (CCC = 0.431), with the lowest reproducibility observed in dependent lung zones.
conclusionThe measurement variability of qCT result of ILA between supine and prone scans was approximately 1.9%, with moderate agreement for the fibrotic component but poor agreement for the nonfibrotic component between the same-day supine and prone CT scans. KEY POINTS: Question Whether qCT-derived measurements of ILA are interchangeable between supine and prone CT scans remains unknown. Findings qCT measurements showed approximately 1.9% positional variability, with moderate agreement for fibrotic components but poor agreement for nonfibrotic components, especially in dependent lung zones. Clinical relevance Supine and prone scans should not be used interchangeably for qCT analysis of ILA. Consistent patient positioning is essential to ensure accurate longitudinal assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42091660What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.