Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29766099›Full record

ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2017

CT scan incidental findings in trauma patients: does it impact hospital length of stay?

Peter Andrawes, Antonio I Picon, Masood A Shariff, Basem Azab, Wolf von Waagner, Seleshi Demissie, Charles Fasanya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Dental Trauma on whole Body Trauma CT-An underreported finding.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Peter AndrawesDepartment of Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health System, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Antonio I PiconDepartment of Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health System, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Masood A ShariffDepartment of Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health System, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Basem AzabDepartment of Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health System, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Wolf von WaagnerDepartment of Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health System, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Seleshi DemissieBiostatistics Unit, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research at Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health System, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Charles FasanyaDepartment of Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health System, Hofstra School of Medicine, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCT scans are heavily relied on for assessment of solid organ injuries complementing clinical examination. These CT scans could also reveal pathologies not related to trauma called incidental findings. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of these findings and their outcome on hospital services.

methodsA retrospective chart review of prospectively collected data of the emergency department's trauma database from January 2005 to December 2011 to evaluate incidental findings on CT scans on trauma admissions. These incidental findings were divided into three classes: class 1-minor degenerative, non-degenerative, normal variants or congenital finding that does not require further investigation or workup; class 2-findings not requiring urgent intervention with scheduled outpatient follow-up and class 3-all findings that require urgent evaluation/further investigation during the same hospital admission. One-year follow-up was done to review hospital length of stay, trauma clinic follow-up and post-trauma surgery.

resultsOf 1000 charts reviewed, 957 were selected after 43 patients were excluded due to incomplete documentation. Of the 957 patients, 385 (40%) were found to have incidental findings. A total of 560 incidental findings were found on the CT scan reports with one-third of patients having multiple findings (144 patients, 37.4%). The largest number of incidental findings were in class 2. The incidental group had significantly longer length of stay after adjusted multivariate analysis (8.7±0.48 vs 6.7±0.55, p=0.005).

conclusionThe incidental findings are commonly found during CT imaging in trauma centers and our rate was 40%. Appropriate documentation, communication and follow-up of those findings is necessary. A classification system for these findings practiced nationwide will aid in categorizing the urgency of continued follow-up. This also will help decrease the length of hospital stay and healthcare cost. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Indexed as

computed tomography scanincidental findingsincidentalomatrauma

Identifiers

PMID29766099
PMCPMC5877912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.