ArticleCase reports in emergency medicine2015
Pitfalls in suspected acute aortic syndrome: impact of appropriate and if required repeated imaging.
Article in Case reports in emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- MDCT evaluation of acute aortic syndrome (AAS).The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incidence of acute aortic syndrome is low, but the spontaneous course is often life-threatening. Adequate ECG-gated imaging is fundamental within the diagnostic workup. We here report a case of a 53-year-old man presenting with atypical chest pain, slight increase of D dimers at admission, and extended diameter of the ascending aorta accompanied by mild aortic regurgitation. Interpretation of an initial contrast-enhanced computed tomography was false negative due to inadequate gating and motion artifacts, thereby judging a tiny contrast signal in the left anterior quadrant of the ascending aorta as a pseudointimal flap. By hazard, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated an ulcer-like lesion superior to the aortic root, leading to aortic surgery at the last moment. As sensitivity of imaging is not 100%, this example underlines that second imaging studies might be necessary if the first imaging is negative, but the clinical suspicion still remains high.
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.