ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2013
Accuracy of Non-Contrast CT Brain Interpretation by Emergency Physicians: A cohort study.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Brain Computed Tomography Diagnosis by Emergency Medicine Physicians.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- An overlooked cause of subdural effusions.BMJ case reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the accuracy of emergency physicians (EPs) in the interpretation of non-contrast CT Brain (NCCT Brain) by examining the inter rater reliability between EPs and radiology specialists. METHODOLOGY: A four months prospective cohort study was conducted at emergency department of King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. We studied the daily performance of our EPs, and compared it to the radiological report issued within the week after. Data were analyzed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and agreement (kappa statistic), using radiology report as the reference standard. Results : Out of 241 cases eligible for the study, 210 (87.14%) were concordant, and 31 (12.86%) were discordant. The agreement (kappa) was to be 0.64. Conclusion : We concluded that our EPs are moderately accurate at interpreting NCCT Brain studies. Further education and training programs were necessary for all our EPs to improve the accuracy. Further studies are required to determine the most cost-effective method of minimizing consequential misinterpretations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.