Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31924242›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2020

Clinical guided computer tomography decisions are advocated in potentially severely injured trauma patients: a one-year audit in a level 1 trauma Centre with long pre-hospital times.

Anna Bågenholm, Trond Dehli, Stig Eggen Hermansen, Kristian Bartnes, Marthe Larsen, Tor Ingebrigtsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna BågenholmDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, UiT-The Artic University of Norway, PO box 6050 Langnes, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway. anna.bagenholm@unn.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3358-3068
Trond DehliDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, UiT-The Artic University of Norway, PO box 6050 Langnes, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway.
Stig Eggen HermansenDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of North Norway, PO box 103, N-9038, Tromsø, Norway.
Kristian BartnesDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, UiT-The Artic University of Norway, PO box 6050 Langnes, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway.
Marthe LarsenCentre for Quality Improvements and Development, University Hospital of North Norway, PO box 103, N-9038, Tromsø, Norway.
Tor IngebrigtsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, UiT-The Artic University of Norway, PO box 6050 Langnes, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway.
University Hospital of North Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe International Commission on Radiological Protection's (ICRP) justification principles state that an examination is justified if the potential benefit outweighs the risk for radiation harm. Computer tomography (CT) contributes 50% of the radiation dose from medical imaging, and in trauma patients, the use of standardized whole body CT (SWBCT) increases. Guidelines are lacking, and reviews conclude conflictingly regarding the benefit. We aimed to study the degree of adherence to ICRP's level three justification, the individual dose limitation principle, in our institution.

methodsThis is a retrospective clinical audit. We included all 144 patients admitted with trauma team activation to our regional Level 1 trauma centre in 2015. Injuries were categorized according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes. Time variables, vital parameters and interventions were registered. We categorized patients into trauma admission SWBCT, selective CT or no CT examination strategy groups. We used descriptive statistics and regression analysis of predictors for CT examination strategy.

resultsThe 144 patients (114 (79.2%) males) had a median age of 31 (range 0-91) years. 105 (72.9%) had at least one AIS ≥ 2 injury, 26 (18.1%) in more than two body regions. During trauma admission, at least one vital parameter was abnormal in 46 (32.4%) patients, and 73 (50.7%) underwent SWBCT, 43 (29.9%) selective CT and 28 (19.4%) no CT examination. No or only minor injuries were identified in 17 (23.3%) in the SWBCT group. Two (4.6%) in the selective group were examined with a complement CT, with no new injuries identified. A significantly (p < 0.001) lower proportion of children (61.5%) than adults (89.8%) underwent CT examination despite similar injury grades and use of interventions. In adjusted regression analysis, patients with a high-energy trauma mechanism had significantly (p = 0.028) increased odds (odds ratio = 4.390, 95% confidence interval 1.174-16.413) for undergoing a SWBCT.

conclusionThe high proportion of patients with no or only minor injuries detected in the SWBCT group and the significantly lower use of CT among children, indicate that use of a selective CT examination strategy in a higher proportion of our patients would have approximated the ICRP's justification level three, the individual dose limitation principle, better.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAbbreviated Injury ScaleAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolClinical AuditFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedDecision toolDiagnostic imagingDose limitationInjuryMulti traumaTrauma auditTrauma populationWhole body computer tomography

Identifiers

PMID31924242
PMCPMC6954603
OpenAlexW2999546832

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.