ArticleCureus2023
Are Computed Tomography Scans Necessary for the Diagnosis of Peritonsillar Abscess?
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- HMGB1 and Kallistatin: Novel Serological Markers for Differentiating Peritonsillar Cellulitis and Abscess.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Outcomes of conservative antibiotic therapy in pediatric peritonsillar abscesses: a retrospective observational study.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Accurate Diagnosis of Peritonsillar Abscesses Using Relative CT Number Measurements in Low-Density Areas of Contrast CT Images.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of Peritonsillar Abscess-A Prospective Study Comparing Clinical with CT Findings in 133 Consecutive Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Double trouble: Necrotizing tonsillitis in the setting ofRadiology case reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Peritonsillar abscess is one of the most common deep-space infections of the head and neck, accounting for significant healthcare costs in the United States. Contributing to this expenditure is the trend of increased usage of computed tomography (CT), particularly in the emergency department. However, CT can be falsely positive for peritonsillar abscess, prompting unnecessary drainage attempts that yield no purulence. The false positive findings question the accuracy of CT in diagnosing peritonsillar abscess. Objectives The objective of the study was to compare the accuracy of CT with clinical exam to assess if CT is warranted in peritonsillar abscess diagnosis. Methods A retrospective study was performed of patients presenting to eight Orlando emergency departments with throat pain from January 1, 2013, to April 30, 2013. Patients with clinical diagnoses of peritonsillar abscesses were reviewed. A note was made whether CT was performed and if peritonsillar abscess was seen. The reads were compared to the results of procedural intervention for abscess drainage to assess the accuracy of CT in diagnosing peritonsillar abscess. Results There were 116 patients diagnosed with peritonsillar abscess, of which 99 underwent CT scans to aid in diagnosis. Among these 99 patients, 23 received procedural intervention, with 16 having a return of purulence (69.6%), and seven remaining without purulence (30.4%). Conclusion This study highlights the potential inaccuracies of CT scan in diagnosing peritonsillar abscess, as 30.4% of scans interpreted as abscess lacked purulence on intervention. Given these findings, clinicians could serve as better fiscal stewards by using history and exam to guide management in the majority cases with infectious processes of the oropharynx.
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.