ArticleLa Radiologia medica2022
Major trauma with only dynamic criteria: is the routine use of whole-body CT as a first level examination justified?
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can leukocyte count predict the presence of post-traumatic lesions on the WBCT in clinically stable severe trauma patients? A retrospective study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Investigating the Potential Overuse of Pan-Computed Tomography (PanCT) Examinations in Trauma Cases in Emergency Departments.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Abdominal compartment syndrome: what radiologist needs to know.La Radiologia medica · 2023Review
- Predictive factors of selective transarterial embolization failure in acute renal bleeding: a single-center experience.Emergency radiology · 2023Article
- Economic and clinical benefits of immediate total-body CT in the diagnostic approach to polytraumatized patients: a descriptive analysis through a literature review.La Radiologia medica · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRisks and benefits of systematic use of whole-body CT (WBCT) in patients with major trauma when no injury is clinically suspected is still subject of controversy. WBCT allows early identification of potentially evolving lesions, but exposes patients to the risk of high radiation dose and iodine contrast agent. The study aimed to assess if WBCT could be avoided in trauma patients with negative clinical examination. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included polytrauma patients admitted to the Emergency Department in a six-month period, who had undergone a WBCT scan for major dynamic criteria, with hemodynamic stability, absence of clinical and medical risk factors for major trauma. The patients (n = 233) were divided into two groups according to the absence (n = 152) or presence (n = 81) of clinical suspicion of organ injury. The WBCT results were classified as negative, positive for minor and positive for major lesions.
resultsThe average patient age was 44 years. CT scans were completely negative in 111 (47.6%) patients, whose 104 (93.7%) were in the negative clinic group. 122 (52.4%) CT scans were positive, 69 (56.6%) for minor lesions and 53 (43.4%) for major lesions. Among the 48 (39.3%) positive CT scans in patients with negative clinic, only 5 (10.4%) were positive for major lesions. We found a significant difference in the frequency of injuries between the clinically negative and clinically positive patient groups (p < 0.001).
conclusionA thorough clinical examination associated with a primary radiological evaluation may represent a valid diagnostic approach for trauma with only major dynamic criteria to limit the use of WBCT.
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.