ArticleAcute medicine & surgery
A study of the usefulness of inspection of radiology reports in the emergency room.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with emergency department length of stay of foreign patients visiting a regional core hospital in Japan.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to better understand the usefulness of retrospective inspection of radiology reports of CT (computed tomography) or MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) by emergency doctors in the emergency room.
methodsBetween April 2018 and March 2019, patients who went home after CT or MRI who needed to change their treatment plans and subsequent corresponding procedures after inspection of radiology reports by emergency doctors were reviewed.
resultsAmong 7,661 CT or MRIs performed on 5,917 patients, there were 131 patients (133 CT or MRI or 1.7% among 7,661 examinations) who required a change in their treatment plans after inspection of radiology reports. Of the 133 CT or MRI performed, there were 51 (38.3% among 133 CT or MRI, 0.7% among 7,661 examinations) CT or MRI performed, which indicated findings to suspect a tumor (11.8% in the head, 41.2% in the chest, 35.3% in the abdomen, and 11.8% in others). With the need to make important changes in treatment plans, making appointments for outpatient clinics was necessary for 52 CT or MRI findings, and requiring the patients to return to the clinic or be admitted was necessary for 9 (totally 61; 0.8% among 7,661 examinations).
conclusionData from this study suggest that inspection of radiology reports of CT or MRI by emergency doctors after patients went home is useful in finding characteristics suggestive of tumors in 0.7% of all radiology reports and is necessary to identify important changes that should be made in treatment plans in 0.8% of all radiology reports.
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.