Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30635023›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2019

Reduced scan range abdominopelvic CT in patients with suspected acute appendicitis - impact on diagnostic accuracy and effective radiation dose.

Dominik Zinsser, Michael Maurer, Phuong-Linh Do, Jakob Weiß, Mike Notohamiprodjo, Fabian Bamberg, Ahmed E Othman

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. An Overview on the Alignment of Radiation Protection in Computed Tomography withThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dominik ZinsserDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. dominik.zinsser@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7203-3093
Michael MaurerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Phuong-Linh DoDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Jakob WeißDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Mike NotohamiprodjoDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Fabian BambergDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Ahmed E OthmanDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tuebingen, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
University of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate a reduced range CT protocol in patients with suspected acute appendicitis as compared to standard abdominal CT regarding diagnostic performance, effective radiation dose and organ doses.

methodsIn this study, we retrospectively included 90 patients (43 female, mean age 56.7 ± 17 years) with suspected acute appendicitis who underwent CT of abdomen and pelvis. From those CTs, we reconstructed images with a reduced scan range from L1 to the the pubic symphysis. Full range and reduced range datasets were assessed by two radiologists for i) coverage of the Appendix, ii) presence/absence of appendicitis and iii) presence of differential diagnoses. Furthermore, effective radiation doses as well as organ doses were calculated using a commercially available dose management platform (Radimetrics, Bayer HealthCare).

resultsThe Appendix was covered by the reduced range CT in all cases. In 66 patients CT confirmed the presence of appendicitis. In 14 patients, other relevant differential diagnoses were identified by CT, whereas in 10 patients no relevant findings were detected. Both readers identified all patients with appendicitis on both full and reduced range CT. For reduced range CT, total effective dose was 39% lower than for full range CT (reduced range: 4.5 [1.9-11.2] vs. full range: 7.4 [3.3-18.8] mSv; p ≤ 0.001). Notably, a remarkable reduction of organ dose in the female breasts by 97% (0.1 [0.1-0.6] vs. 3.8 [0.5-18.8] mSv; p ≤ 0.001) and in the testicles in males by 81% (3.4 [0.7-32.7] vs. 17.6 [5.4-52.9] mSv; p ≤ 0.001) was observed for reduced range CT compared to full range CT.

conclusionsIn patients with suspected acute appendicitis, reduced range abdominopelvic CT results in a comparable diagnostic performance with a remarkable reduction of total effective radiation dose and organ doses (especially breast dose in female and testicle dose in male patients) as compared to full range CT.

Indexed as

AbdomenAcute DiseaseAdultAgedAppendicitisDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SpecificityPelvisRadiation DosageRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityAppendicitisComputed tomographyRadiation doseScan range

Identifiers

PMID30635023
PMCPMC6329115
OpenAlexW2920291814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.