Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33080675›Full record

ArticleMedicine2020

Diagnostic value of abdominal follow-up sonography in polytrauma patients: A retrospective study.

Thorsten Lichtenstein, De-Hua Chang, M Sokolowski, N Große Hokamp, M T Berninger, R M Simons, M Hellmich, D Maintz, T D Henning

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Thorsten LichtensteinInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne.
De-Hua ChangInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne.
M SokolowskiInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne.
N Große HokampInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne.
M T BerningerDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Murnau, Murnau am Staffelsee.
R M SimonsDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne.
M HellmichInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne.
D MaintzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne.
T D HenningInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne.
University Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Cologne · DEBerufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Murnau · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many German trauma centres, it is routine to perform abdominal follow-up sonography (AFS) 6 h after admission for patients with multiple trauma, even if the clinical course is uneventful and multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) reveals no abdominal pathology. However, this approach is not recommended in the German Guidelines for trauma, and recent studies have questioned the value of AFS to these patients. The present study aimed to evaluate the revised German Guidelines for trauma with respect to the omission of AFS.We included patients with multiple injuries with no clinical signs of abdominal trauma and with normal abdominal MSCT. We collected clinical data of 370 consecutive patients who underwent AFS (Group A) and another 370 consecutive patients who did not undergo AFS (Group B).No abdominal injury was missed by the omission of AFS, and thus, no patient suffered from its omission or benefitted from the use of AFS. In our study population, the negative predictive value of normal MSCT results combined with no clinical signs of abdominal trauma was 100% (95% confidence interval: 99.5%-100.0%).This single-centre study conducted in a large German trauma centre demonstrates AFS to have no utility in the diagnosis of abdominal injury. Moreover, omission of AFS for conscious patients without clinical signs of abdominal trauma and with negative abdominal MSCT does not appear to have negative consequences in terms of missed abdominal injury.Therefore, AFS can be safely omitted in the majority of cases of polytrauma, which simplifies the imaging workup tremendously.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAbdominal InjuriesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolFemaleGermanyHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedMultiple TraumaRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33080675
PMCPMC7571869
OpenAlexW3094188087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.