ArticleEmergency radiology2014
Appropriateness of selection criteria for CT examinations performed at an emergency department.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the Potential Overuse of Pan-Computed Tomography (PanCT) Examinations in Trauma Cases in Emergency Departments.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Necessity and Radiation Risk of Brain CT Scans Requested by the Trauma Emergency Department.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Outcome of an Unnecessary Request for CT Scan in Be'sat Hospital of Hamadan.Radiology research and practice · 2023Article
- Computed tomography for non-traumatic headache in the emergency department and the impact of follow-up testing on altering the initial diagnosis.Emergency radiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the diagnosis of traumatic and nontraumatic emergencies, computed tomography (CT) is the most frequently performed procedure. The aims of this study were to find out whether CT report results can be used as a reliable tool for the diagnosis and management of patients at an emergency department and to evaluate the appropriateness of the selection criteria for CT examinations. For this reason, we analysed the emergency CT procedures according to the diagnostic hypothesis written on CT request forms, the results of the CT reports and the final diagnosis of the patients. One thousand consecutive CT procedures in the emergency department of a research hospital were retrospectively analysed. When the CT reports and the final diagnosis were evaluated, the sensitivity and specifity of the CT were found to be 0.81 and 0.85. According to the analysis of the CT reports, 55.8 % of all the patients were reported to be normal. When the patient files were examined for the final diagnosis of the patients, 55.7 % of the patients did not receive a final diagnosis related to the diagnostic hypothesis. The lowest correlation was found between the diagnostic hypothesis, the CT reports and the final diagnosis of the patients who underwent cranial CT procedure for trauma. The results of the CT reports can be used as a reliable parameter for the diagnosis and management of the patients at emergency departments. On the other hand, a high negative rate of CT reports was noted especially for the cranial CT examinations. CT selection criteria for the head trauma patients should be reconsidered. Since CT is a procedure involving ionising radiation, it is important that it is performed with the correct indications and the relevant clinical information is specified on the CT request forms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24848298What 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.