ArticleEmergency radiology2017
Role of computed tomography at a cancer center emergency department.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- ChestPathCT5-S100: an open real-world chest CT dataset of five common thoracic pathologies with heterogeneous acquisition conditions.GigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2026Article
- Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department: How to Select the Correct Imaging for Diagnosis.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2022Review
- Imaging of acute pelvic pain.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Assessing and coping with the financial burden of computed tomography utilization in Limbe, Cameroon: a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Utility of Emergency Department Chest Imaging in Patients with Cancer: A Descriptive Study.The Journal of emergency medicine · 2020Article
- New CT-based diagnoses of torso cancer is low in the emergency department setting.Emergency radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the imaging methods used at the emergency department (ED) of a cancer center, with emphasis on computed tomography (CT). A descriptive, retrospective, single-center study was conducted by reviewing imaging exams and medical records, after approval of the institution's Ethics Review Board. The demographic data, cancer history, and imaging exam requested were evaluated for all patients and the indications and results of head, chest, and abdominopelvic CT scans were also evaluated. During the study period, there were 8710 visits to the ED, and 5999 imaging studies were requested in 3788 patients (43.5 % of total of visits). One thousand eight hundred twenty-nine CT exams were used in 1121 visits (12.9 % of total of visits). The mean age of patients was 57.7 years and most patients (93.2 %) had a known primary tumor. The most common indications for abdominopelvic CT were non-oncologic emergencies (26.7 %) and postoperative complications (19.2 %), and the results were negative in 36.6 %, positive for clinical suspicion in 49.0 %, and incidental positive in 14.5 %. The most frequent indication for chest CT was suspected pulmonary embolism (34.4 %); however, only 11.1 % confirmed the diagnosis. The results of head TC were negative in 72.9 % and the indications that had more positive findings were suspected metastasis (32.1 %) and focal neurological sign/altered level of consciousness (24.5 %). CT plays an important role in driving the cancer patients visiting the ED. However, the high rate of negative or discordant results causes a concern for the inadvertent and excessive use of this imaging modality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27722805What 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.