ArticlePolish journal of radiology2022
Are we overusing abdominal computed tomography scans in young patients referred in an emergency for acute abdominal pain?
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Accuracy and Impact of the ESR-iGuide Decision Support Tool in Optimizing CT Imaging Referral Appropriateness.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of connective tissue diseases on inpatient outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding: insights from a national database analysis.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Advancing acceptance: assessing acceptance of the ESR iGuide clinical decision support system for improved computed tomography test justification.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The primary objective was to assess the frequency of appropriateness of computed tomography (CT) for acute abdominal pain (AAP) in the emergency department; the secondary aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultra-sound (US) and CT in the diagnosis of the aetiology of AAP for diseases that can be diagnosed by US; and the third objective was to assess extent to which inappropriate CT examinations for AAP result in ionizing radiation exposure. Material and methods: In this retrospective single-centre study, we included patients aged between 15 and 46 years referred to the emergency department for AAP in 2016 and submitted to abdominal CT scans, collecting a total of 586 patients. In 152 patients with the more frequent pathologies, we compared the referral reason and current guidelines of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) IGUIDE®. Then we measured and compared the sensitivity of US and CT for the identification of the aetiology of AAP for diseases whose diagnosis can be reached by US. We also recorded the mean computed tomography dose index (CTDI Results: According to IGUIDE and based on the clinical suspicion of CT requests, CT examination was considered crucial in 264 (45.05%) patients. 322 patients had a referral reason for CT scan that could be considered "possibly appropriate" according Iguide criteria (4, 5, 6 scoring). Of these, 135 had an inappropriate CT request according to image findings. Conclusions: A better clinical framing and a correct interpretation of the reference guidelines could reduce unjustified exposure to ionizing radiation.
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.