RESUMO
Imaging plays an important role in the detection of coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia in both managing the disease and evaluating the complications. Imaging with chest computed tomography (CT) can also have a potential predictive and prognostic role in COVID-19 patient outcomes. The aim of this pictorial review is to describe the role of imaging with chest X-ray (CXR), lung ultrasound (LUS), and CT in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 pneumonia, the current indications, the scores proposed for each modality, the advantages/limitations of each modality and their role in detecting complications, and the histopathological correlations.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the role of radiologists, cardiologists, and other medical and non-medical figures in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research in the last 34 years, focusing on first and last authorship, number of published studies, and journal impact factors (IF). METHODS: Articles in the field of cardiac MRI were considered in this systematic review and retrospective bibliometric analysis. For included studies, the first and last authors were categorized as cardiologists, radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, medical doctors (MD) with specialties in both cardiology and radiology/nuclear medicine, and other MD and non-MD. Differences in the number of papers published overall and by year and institution location for the first and last author category were assessed. Mean IF differences between author categories were also investigated. RESULTS: A total of 2053 articles were included in the final analysis. For the first authors (n = 2011), 52% were cardiologists, 22% radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, 16% other MD, 10% other non-MD, and 1% both cardiologists and radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians. Similarly, the last authors (n = 2029) resulted 54% cardiologists, 22% radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, 15% other MD, 8% other non-MD, and 2% both cardiologists and radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians. No significant differences due to institution location in the first and last authorship proportions were found. Average journal IF was significantly higher for cardiologist first and last authors when compared to that of radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians (both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Over 50% of studies in the field of cardiac MRI published in the last 34 years are conducted by cardiologists.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: to assess whether MRI T stage of breast cancer lesions (BCLs) is affected by maximum diameter (MD) measured at different post-contrast time points (TPs) on different acquisition planes on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI sequence. METHODS: 53 DCE-MRI examinations of patients with BCLs were retrospectively selected. MD of BCLs was measured on axial, coronal and sagittal planes on DCE images at five different post-contrast TPs. Friedman test followed by Bonferroni-adjusted Wilcoxon-signed rank test for post-hoc analysis was performed to evaluate differences among the five measurements. Reliability of the measurements was evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient analysis. Differences between pathological and MRI T stage assessed at each TP on each acquisition plane were assessed using the Wilcoxon-sign rank test; p values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: on axial, coronal and sagittal planes, MD measured at TP1 was significantly different (p < 0.0001) compared to those obtained at the subsequent TPs. No significant differences were found between MD measured at TPs 3, 4 and 5. Intra and inter-observer reliability resulted as very good, with ICC ranging between 0.915-0.992 and 0.845-0.911, respectively. MRI T stage assessed at TP1 on axial and sagittal plane as well as at all TPs on coronal plane was significantly different from pathological T stage. CONCLUSION: MRI T stage definition of BCLs is significantly affected by the TP used for lesions' MD measurement. TPs 3, 4 and 5 are the preferred TPs for the assessment of MRI T stage of BCLs on both axial and sagittal planes.
