ArticleEmergency radiology2022
Automated CT reformations reduce time and variability in trauma panscan exam completion.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2022. 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.
- Off-console automated artificial intelligence enhanced workflow enables improved emergency department CT capacity.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test the hypothesis that an automated post-processing workflow reduces trauma panscan exam completion times and variability.
methodsOne-hundred-fifty consecutive trauma panscans performed between June 2018 and December 2019 were included, half before and half after implementation of an automated software-driven post-processing workflow. Acquisition and reconstruction timestamps were used to calculate total examination time (first acquisition to last reformation), setup time (between the non-contrast and contrast-enhanced acquisitions), and reconstruction time (for the contrast-enhanced reconstructions and reformations). The performing technologist was recorded and accounted for in analyses using linear mixed models to assess differences between the pre- and post-intervention groups.
resultsExam, setup, and recon times were (mean ± standard deviation) 33.5 ± 4.6, 9.2 ± 2.4, and 23.6 ± 4.7 min before and 27.8 ± 1.5, 8.9 ± 1.4, and 18.9 ± 1.7 min after intervention. These reductions of 5.7 and 4.7 min in the mean exam and recon times were statistically significant (p < 0.001) while the setup time was not (p = 0.49). The reductions in standard deviation were statistically significant for exam and recon times (p < 0.0001) but not for setup time (p = 0.13). All automated panscans were completed within 36 min, versus 65% with the traditional workflow.
conclusionAutomation of image reconstruction workflow significantly decreased mean exam and reconstruction times as well as variability between exams, thus facilitating a consistently rapid imaging assessment, and potentially reducing delays in critical management decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35237937What 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.