ArticleEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2017
Pan vs. Selective Computed Tomography Scans in Management of Multiple Trauma Patients; a Brief Report.
Article in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Potential Overuse of Pan-Computed Tomography (PanCT) Examinations in Trauma Cases in Emergency Departments.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Yield of whole-body computed tomography at a low-volume emergency department: A 5-year experience.Saudi medical journal · 2021Observational
- Advantage of surgical intensive care unit (SICU) predominant by cardiothoracic surgeons in multiple trauma management in a primary hospital.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2021Article
- Mortality Rate of Trauma Patients with ESI Triage Level 1-2 Who Underwent Computerized Tomography-PANSCAN versus Conventional Computerized Tomography Scan.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2021Article
- An assessment of repeat computed tomography utilization in the emergency department in the setting of blunt trauma.Emergency radiology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUsing pan or selective computed tomography (CT) scan in management of multiple trauma patient is a matter of debate. Therefore, the present study was designed aiming to compare the findings of pan and selective CT scans in management of multiple trauma patients.
methodThis is a prospective cross-sectional study, on patients presented to the emergency department (ED) of Shohadaye Haftome Tir Hospital, Tehran, Iran, following blunt multiple trauma over a 1-year period, from March 2014 to March 2015. Findings regarding presence or absence of injury in head, face, neck, chest, abdomen and hip were compared between patients that underwent pan and selective CT using SPSS 21.
results443 patients with the mean age of 34.54 ± 17.88 years were evaluated (78% male). 248 (56%) patients underwent selective CT scan and 195 (44%) underwent pan CT scan. The 2 groups were similar regarding vital signs and mean age. Mean hospital length of stay was 21.05 ± 24.64 days for selective CT scan group and 18.18 ± 22.75 days for the other one (p = 0.209). A significant difference was only seen regarding findings of chest injury between the 2 groups (p < 0.001). In other cases a proper overlap was seen between findings of the 2 groups.
conclusionBased on the results of the present study, it seems that doing selective CT scan yields results similar to pan CT in detection of head and face, neck and abdomen and hip injuries in multiple trauma patients. However, using pan CT in these patients led to 16% increase in detection and diagnosis of traumatic intra-thoracic injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28286845PMC5325908W2299530630What 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.