Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2019
Diagnostic imaging for acute abdominal pain in an Emergency Department in Italy.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing a Clear and New Definition of Non-specific Abdominal Pain for the Identification of Rare Diseases.Cureus · 2025Article
- Assessing artificial intelligence-generated patient discharge information for the emergency department: a pilot study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Value of Physical Examination, Ultrasound, and Radiography Compared to Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Nontraumatic Left Lower Quadrant Acute Abdominal Pain.Emergency medicine international · 2025Article
- Accurate diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the emergency department: an artificial intelligence-based approach.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of abdominal gas by plain abdominal radiographs.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Article
- Developing a Simple Score for Diagnosis of Acute Cholecystitis at the Emergency Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic values of supine and erect abdominal radiographs for patients with acute abdomen: which is better for decision making?Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
- Trends in utilisation of plain X-rays by older Australians (2010-2019).BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Emphysematous abdominal aortitis: a hint of Salmonella infection.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Article
- The impact of COVID-19 outbreak on urolithiasis emergency department admissions, hospitalizations and clinical management in central Italy: a multicentric analysis.Actas urologicas espanolas · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Imaging plays a key role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with non-traumatic acute abdominal pain (AAP) in emergency department (ED). We aimed to evaluate the use and diagnostic performance of imaging techniques in adult patients with AAP in an ED in Italy. Patients with non-traumatic AAP admitted at the ED of S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital of Bologna (Italy) from the 1st to the 30th November 2016 were included. Demographic and clinical data, data on radiological procedures and discharge diagnosis were collected. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting acute diseases were assessed using the discharge diagnosis from the ED as reference standard. Of the 578 patients (female 52.8%, mean age 51.3 years) admitted to the ED for AAP, 433 (74.9%) underwent abdominal imaging. The most frequent techniques used were abdominal plain radiography and ultrasonography (US), performed in 38.4% and 37.9% of patients, respectively, followed by computed tomography (CT) in 28% of patients. Plain radiography yielded a sensitivity of 28% and specificity of 91.1%; the sensitivity increased to 79.4% in patients with small bowel obstruction. Ultrasonography's sensitivity and specificity were 61.8% and 98.4%, respectively; the sensitivity of US reached 85.2% and 90% in patients with acute cholecystitis/biliary colic and urolithiasis, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of CT were 87.8% and 92.9%, respectively. Plain radiography is still overused in the diagnostic work-up of AAP in ED in Italy, despite its unsatisfactory sensitivity. Ultrasonography and CT has a higher sensitivity and should be used as first-level imaging in most 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.