ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Diagnostic performance and radiation dose of reduced vs. standard scan range abdominopelvic CT for evaluation of appendicitis.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the feasibility and radiation dose reduction of low-dose computed tomography in radiofrequency ablation for liver tumours.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of low dose CT-Scan abdomen in patients with clinical features of acute appendicitis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance and radiation dose of reduced vs. standard scan range CT in diagnosing appendicitis.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 531 consecutive adults who underwent emergency contrast-enhanced CT for abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis between July 2018 and March 2019. One hundred eighty-one young adults (mean age, 26 ± 6 years) were imaged from L2 to the symphysis pubis (reduced protocol). A total of 350 older patients (mean age, 55 ± 17 years) and those with a wider differential diagnosis were imaged from the diaphragm to the ischium (standard protocol). The reference standard was histopathology (surgical cases) or 3 months of medical record follow-up (nonsurgical cases). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Mean dose-length products (DLP) were compared (t-test). Using an anthropomorphic phantom, organ doses were measured on CT scanners with (scanner 1) and without (scanner 2) automatic voltage selection; effective radiation doses were calculated.
resultsThe frequency of appendicitis was 57/181 (31.5%) and 80/350 (22.9%) in the reduced and standard groups, respectively. Results of the reduced and standard protocols respectively were as follows (95% CI in parentheses): sensitivity, 98.2% (90.4-99.9%) and 100.0 (95.3-100.0%); specificity, 99.2% (95.6-100.0%) and 99.6% (97.9-100.0%); accuracy, 97.8% and 97.4%; mean DLPs, 363 ± 191mGy∙cm and 633 ± 591mGy∙cm (p < 0.0001). Phantom-based measurements of effective dose were 47% lower on scanner 1 (4.64 vs. 2.48 mSv) and 26% lower on scanner 2 (4.68 vs. 3.45 mSv) with the reduced protocol.
conclusionFor young adults with clinically suspected appendicitis, a reduced scan range CT protocol is as sensitive, specific, and accurate as a standard scan range CT and imparts significantly less radiation dose. KEY POINTS: • A reduced scan range CT protocol in young adults with high suspicion of appendicitis demonstrates similar diagnostic performance as a full-range abdominopelvic CT in undifferentiated adult patients. • The reduced scan range CT protocol imparts significantly less radiation dose: 57% based on dose-length product data and 26-47% based on anthropomorphic phantom data.
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.