ArticleInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2020
The Diagnostic Process for the Evaluation of Acute Abdominal Pain by Resident Trainees in Japan: A Cross-sectional Study.
Article in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 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.
- Machine learning based prediction models for analyzing risk factors in patients with acute abdominal pain: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Acute abdominal pain (AAP) of diverse etiology is a common chief complaint of patients who present to the emergency department (ED). AAP may pose a diagnostic challenge to physicians in training. We aimed to evaluate whether or not resident trainee doctors examine patients presenting with AAP in a Japanese acute-care hospital following Kendall's diagnostic algorithm. Methods We conducted a retrospective medical chart review from January 2015 to December 2016. Patients Patients ≥50 years old who presented to the ED within 7 days of the onset of AAP who were evaluated by residents at the ED of an acute care hospital were enrolled in this study. Patients transported by ambulance and referred from other hospitals and classified as level 1 or 2 according to the Japanese version of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale were excluded. Data, including the clinical history, location and character of pain, and age and gender of patients as well as the level of experience of residents, were abstracted from charts. We evaluated the concordance rate between the actual diagnostic process followed by residents and Kendall's diagnostic algorithm for AAP. Results We analyzed 466 patients (mean age 67.6 years) in the study who were evaluated and diagnosed by 123 residents. The concordance rate between the diagnostic procedures performed by residents and those suggested by Kendall's diagnostic algorithm was 61.2%. A low concordance rate was observed among patients with peritoneal signs, shock or toxic appearance (25.0%), suggested acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (55.1%), epigastric or right upper-quadrant pain (52.8%), and left upper-quadrant pain (55.6%). Abdominal ultrasonography is one of the recommended examinations for patients with signs of peritoneal irritation, shock or toxic appearance, right lower-quadrant pain, and left upper- or lower-quadrant pain, but the rates were relatively low at 25.0%, 34.4%, 31.8%, and 26.7%, respectively. Conclusion Abdominal ultrasonography required by Kendall's diagnostic algorithm was not performed appropriately in patients with symptoms and signs of peritonitis, shock or toxic appearance, right lower-quadrant pain, and left upper- or lower-quadrant pain or in female patients by resident trainees. Our findings underscore the importance of providing resident doctors with focused training concerning ultrasonography by attending physicians.
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.