ArticleEmergency radiology2024
CT esophagogram in the emergency setting: typical findings and suggested workflow.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- CT oral contrast and contemporary imaging pathways for suspected oesophageal perforation in the emergency department: a retrospective observational study.Emergency radiology · 2026Observational
- Diagnostic utility of a CT upper gastrointestinal protocol for the detection of gastroduodenal leaks.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Imaging of esophageal perforation including in the postoperative patient: a contemporary review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic challenges in boerhaave syndrome with bilateral pleural contamination: complementary roles of computed tomography, endoscopy, and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Optimizing CT Esophagography: Ex Vivo Study on Contrast Ratios, Image Quality, and Dual-Energy Benefits.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEsophageal perforation (EP) can be a diagnostic challenge. Computed tomography (CT) and CT esophagography (CTE) are often used to rule out EP in the emergency setting with promising diagnostic performance, but the standard of care remains fluoroscopic esophagography (FE). We assess the diagnostic performance of CT and CTE when interpreted by expert and generalist radiologists and created an imaging workflow guide.
methodsRetrospective study of patients presenting with suspected EP. Two expert radiologists independently reviewed blinded CT/CTE studies, recorded CT findings, and assigned an esophageal injury grade. We also collected initial (general radiologist) CT findings and interpretation and FE diagnoses. We assessed inter-reader reliability and diagnostic performance.
resultsEP was diagnosed in 46/139 (33%) encounters. The most common CT/CTE findings in EP were esophageal wall thickening (46/46, 100%), pneumomediastinum (42/46, 91%), and mediastinal stranding (39/46, 85%). CT and CTE sensitivity for detecting EP was 89% and 89% for expert radiologists, respectively, and 79% and 82% for general radiologists, compared with 46% for FE. Inter-reader agreement for detecting EP by CT and CTE was kappa 0.35 and 0.42 (both p < .001) between expert and generalist radiologists. We present radiographic images for key CT/CTE findings and a suggested workflow for the evaluation of possible EP.
conclusionCT and CTE are more sensitive than FE for EP in the emergency setting. Due to the rarity of EP and current wide variability in imaging interpretation, an imaging workflow and injury grading system based on esophageal and mediastinal CT findings are offered to help guide management.
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.