ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Improving Pediatric Ovarian Torsion Evaluation in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Initiative.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconsidering equivocal ultrasound findings in pediatric adnexal torsion.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Performance of non-contrast pelvic MRI for diagnosing adnexal torsion in children.European radiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Improving patient outcomes through quality improvement and safety culture interventions in pediatric emergency care: a systematic review of best practices.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Beyond ltrasound Readiness: A Needs Assessment for Improving Care in Children with Ovarian Torsion.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Improving Turnaround Time of Transabdominal Pelvic Ultrasounds with Ovarian Doppler in a Pediatric Emergency Department.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transabdominal pelvic ultrasound (TPUS) is the diagnostic test of choice for the evaluation of ovarian torsion, a time-sensitive surgical emergency. A full bladder is required to visualize the ovaries. Bladder filling is a time-consuming process leading to delays to TPUS, poor visualization of ovaries requiring repeat studies, and prolonged emergency department length of stay (ED LOS). The primary objective was to decrease the time to TPUS by standardizing the bladder filling process. Methods: This quality improvement initiative occurred at a single, academic, quaternary-care children's hospital ED and utilized the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Model for Improvement with sequential plan-do-study-act cycles. The first set of interventions implemented in August 2021 included a new electronic order set and bladder scan by ED nurses. Subsequent plan-do-study-act cycles aimed to decrease the time to intravenous fluid, decrease fluid requirement, and decrease the need for intravenous fluid. The primary outcome measure was the monthly mean time to TPUS. Secondary outcome measures included monthly mean ED LOS and percentage of repeat TPUS. We performed data analysis with statistical process control charts to assess for system change over time. Results: The preintervention baseline included 292 ED encounters more than 10 months, and postintervention analysis included 526 ED encounters more than 16 months. Time to TPUS decreased (138-120 min), ED LOS decreased (372-335 min), and repeat TPUS decreased (18% to 4%). All changes met the rules for special cause variation. Conclusions: Standardizing the bladder filling process was associated with decreased time to TPUS, ED LOS, and repeat TPUS.
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.