ArticleIrish journal of medical science2015
Utility of CT head in the acute setting: value of contrast and non-contrast studies.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of Computed Tomography of the Head in Patients With Acute Atraumatic Altered Mental Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical Predictors of Intracranial Pathology in Emergency Department Patients with Non-traumatic Headache and No Neurological Deficits: Prospective Study.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Management of severe acute encephalopathy in the ICU: an expert consensus statement from the french society of intensive care medicine.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- An audit of CT brain findings in adults with new-onset seizures in a resource restricted setting in South Africa.SA journal of radiology · 2022Article
- [When are contrast agents really needed? : Cross-sectional imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging].Der Radiologe · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo examine the added diagnostic value of emergent contrast enhanced CT head (CECTH) in patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute non-traumatic symptoms referable to the brain, and to assess the financial implications of CECTH in the emergent setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe queried healthcare data for head CTs ordered by our ED between January 2008 and December 2010. Those who presented to the ED with non-traumatic neurologic disturbances were included. All traumatic head injury cases were excluded. Two board certified radiologists with fellowship training who were blinded to patient history and physical findings, independently reviewed all non-contrast computed tomography of the head (NCTH) and CECTH images. CECTH's were read following abnormal NCTH's, and findings were recorded as normal or abnormal.
resultsIn our investigation, 379 patients-210 (55 %) females and 169 (45 %) males-met the inclusion criteria. Common indications for head CT included: headache 183 (48 %); dizziness 73 (19 %); altered mental status 49 (13 %); and seizure 38 (10 %). The mean age of study subjects was 47 (±29) years. Two hundred sixty-one (69 %) of all patients scanned showed no abnormality. One hundred eighteen (31 %) of 379 patients had abnormal scans. We encountered 1 abnormal CECTH on which NCTH was normal. Cost of CECTH was $465 and NCTH was $385.
conclusionHead CT in ED non-traumatic neurological presentations with CECTH is not generally indicated and represents a calculable cost savings in the management of these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25173368What 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.