ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Radiological mass casualty incident (MCI) workflow analysis: single-centre data of a mid-scale exercise.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Automated CT reformations reduce time and variability in trauma panscan exam completion.Emergency radiology · 2022Article
- European Society of Emergency Radiology: guideline on radiological polytrauma imaging and service (short version).Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- [Resuscitation room diagnostics].Der Radiologe · 2020Review
- Mass casualty incidents-are you ready? A major incident planning template for diagnostic radiology.Emergency radiology · 2020Review
- Medical and Legal Implications of MRI Scout Imaging in a Surgical Patient with Case Presentation.Cureus · 2020Article
- Radiology response in the emergency department during a mass casualty incident: a retrospective study of the two terrorist attacks on 22 July 2011 in Norway.European radiology · 2017Article
- Subspecialisation in Emergency Radiology: Proposal for a harmonised European curriculum.GMS journal for medical education · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to analyse and interpret radiological mass casualty incident workflow data.
methodsIn a mid-scale mass casualty incident exercise, the on-site triage assigned 12 cases to the investigated institution (11 included in the study). Two out of five institutional multislice-CT-scanners were used and the whole CT workflow and radiological service process chain were simulated as close to realistic as possible. The respective time intervals for reaching defined milestones were measured.
resultsThe average CT in-room time, i.e. from entering to leaving the CT room was 9.43 min [(standard deviation) SD: 2.27 min; 95% (confidence interval) CI: 7.90-10.95 min]. Time spent on CT table was 6.75 min (SD: 1.67; CI: 5.63-7.87), and the pure scan time was 4.22 min (SD: 0.64; CI: 3.79-4.65). The first images after entering the CT room were available at a dedicated CT workstation after 5.85 min (SD: 2.20; CI: 4.37-7.32) and institution wide via picture archiving system (PACS) after 7.85 min (SD: 1.27; CI: 7.00-8.71). However, the PACS archiving process, that is, transfer of standard reconstruction set of CT images into the PACS was finished after 20.85 min (SD: 2.97; CI: 18.85-22.84).
conclusionUp to six patients may be served per hour and per CT scanner by using a standard whole body CT polytrauma protocol. Dedicated CT triage protocols may even increase this number. The time portion until images were available at end points was relatively long. A solution has to be developed in order to avoid scenarios of patients being faster at end points than their images.
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.