↓ Skip to main content

Similar performance of Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems in young children with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Similar performance of Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems in young children with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00247-015-3380-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert H. Cleveland, Gregory S. Sawicki, Catherine Stamoulis

Abstract

To assess the severity of lung disease in cystic fibrosis (CF), scoring systems based on chest radiographs (CXRs), CT and MRI have been used extensively, although primarily in research settings rather than for clinical purposes. It has recently been shown that those based on CXRs (primarily the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems) are as sensitive and valid as those based on CT. The reproducibility and correlation of both systems to pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were recently investigated and were found to be statistically identical. However, the relative performance of these systems has not been specifically assessed in children younger than 5 years old with mild lung disease, a critical age range in which PFTs is rarely performed. To investigate and compare the performance of the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems in children 0-5 years old with predominantly mild lung disease. Fifty-five patients 0-5 years old with 105 CXRs were included in the study. Given that the goal was to compare system performance in mild disease, only the first two CXRs from each patient were included (all but five patients had two images). When only one image was available in the target age range, it only was included. Agreement between the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems was assessed using a 2X2 contingency table assuming binary classification of CF lung disease using CXR scoring systems (mild vs. non-mild). In the absence of PFTs or another external gold standard for comparison, the Wisconsin system was used as an arbitrary gold standard against which the Brasfield was compared. Correlation between the two systems was assessed via a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) for repeated measures. Scores were rated as mild or non-mild based on published numerical cutoffs for each system. The systems agreed on 89/105 (85%) and disagreed on 16/105 (15%) of the CXRs. Agreement between the two systems was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Relative sensitivity and specificity of the Brasfield system (which since using the Wisconsin as the gold standard reflects relative agreement rather than absolute performance of the Brasfield) was also fairly high (85% and 84%, respectively). Relatively high correlation between the two systems was also estimated (r = 0.72). The current study, powered to find at least a mild correlation between the two systems, confirms the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems are in agreement when assessing CF lung disease even in patients younger than 5 years of age with predominantly mild disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Master 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 68%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,215,323
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#617
of 2,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,331
of 265,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,080 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.