SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020
Routine versus selective computed tomography in non-traumatic acute abdominal pain: meta-analysis of randomised trials.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the routine vs. selective use of computed tomography (CT) in patients presenting with non-traumatic acute abdominal pain (AAP) to a surgical service.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes according to PRISMA statement standards to compare the routine vs. selective use of CT in adult patients presenting with non-traumatic AAP.
resultsAnalysis of 722 patients from 4 randomised controlled trials showed no difference between the routine CT and selective CT groups in terms of proportion of correct diagnoses (OR 1.36,95% CI 0.89, 2.07, P = 0.15), mortality (RD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.08, 0.02, P = 0.27] and length of hospital stay (LOS) [MD - 0.26, 95% CI - 2.07, 1.55, P = 0.78).
conclusionsThe routine use of CT does not improve the proportion of correct diagnoses and mortality compared to selective use of CT in adult patients with non-traumatic AAP. The available evidence regarding the influence of routine CT on LOS may be subject to type 2 error. These findings, however, may not apply to the elderly patient with AAP and further studies are required.
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.