ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021
Emergency CT misdiagnosis in acute aortic syndrome.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aortic dissection in the ED: a medico-legal perspective on diagnostic delays and failures.CJEM · 2025Article
- Automated AI detection of thoracic aortic dissection on CT imaging.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Multi-Stage Cascaded Deep Learning-Based Model for Acute Aortic Syndrome Detection: A Multisite Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review of Biomarkers and Imaging in the Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndrome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Related factors affecting misdiagnosis of aortic dissection: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Streamlining Acute Abdominal Aortic Dissection Management-An AI-based CT Imaging Workflow.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical and imaging differences between Stanford Type B intramural hematoma-like lesions and classic aortic dissection.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis cross-sectional study assessed the accuracy of emergency CT reports at presentation in acute aortic syndrome (AAS).
methodsRetrospective identification of cases of AAS presenting within a large health board with three acute hospitals receiving adult patients between January 2013 and December 2016. CT studies and reports at presentation were reviewed for discrepancies related to diagnosis, complications and classification by two cardiovascular radiologists. The specialist interest of the original reporters, clinically suspected diagnosis at referral for CT and technical adequacy of the scans were also assessed. False-positive diagnoses were identified and evaluated separately.
resultsAmong 88 consecutive confirmed cases of AAS at least one discrepancy was identified in 31% (
conclusionSignificant discrepancies are common in the emergency CT assessment of positive cases AAS and this study highlights important pitfalls in CT technique and interpretation. The absence of discrepancies among radiologists with specialist cardiovascular interest suggests both suspected and confirmed cases warrant urgent specialist review. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CT angiography is central to the diagnosis of AAS; however, significant radiology discrepancies are common among non-specialists. This study highlights important pitfalls in both CT technique as well as interpretation and supports routine specialist cardiovascular imaging input in the emergency assessment of AAS.
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.