ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016
Evaluation of a new imaging tool for use with major trauma cases in the emergency department.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- European Society of Emergency Radiology: guideline on radiological polytrauma imaging and service (short version).Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- [Reduction of treatment time for children in the trauma room care : Impact of implementation of an interdisciplinary trauma room concept (iTRAPDer Anaesthesist · 2018Article
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
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate potential benefits of a new diagnostic software prototype (Trauma Viewer, TV) automatically reformatting computed tomography (CT) data on diagnostic speed and quality, compared to CT-image data evaluation using a conventional CT console.
methodsMultiple trauma CT data sets were analysed by one expert radiology and one expert traumatology fellow independently twice, once using the TV and once using the secondary conventional CT console placed in the CT control room. Actual analysis time and precision of diagnoses assessment were evaluated. The TV and CT-console results were compared respectively, but also a comparison to the initial multiple trauma CT reports assessed by emergency radiology fellows considered as the gold standard was performed. Finally, design and function of the Trauma Viewer were evaluated in a descriptive manner.
resultsCT data sets of 30 multiple trauma patients were enrolled. Mean time needed for analysis of one CT dataset was 2.43 min using the CT console and 3.58 min using the TV respectively. Thus, secondary conventional CT console analysis was on average 1.15 min shorter compared to the TV analysis. Both readers missed a total of 11 diagnoses using the secondary conventional CT console compared to 12 missed diagnoses using the TV. However, none of these overlooked diagnoses resulted in an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) > 2 corresponding to life threatening injuries.
conclusionsEven though it took the two expert fellows a little longer to analyse the CT scans on the prototype TV compared to the CT console, which can be explained by the new user interface of the TV, our preliminary results demonstrate that, after further development, the TV might serve as a new diagnostic feature in the trauma room management. Its high potential to improve time and quality of CT-based diagnoses might help in fast decision making regarding treatment of severely injured patients.
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.