ArticleEmergency radiology2024
CT pulmonary angiography in the emergency department: utilization and positivity rates during various phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 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.
- Trends in CT pulmonary angiography utilization and recurrent imaging in sickle cell disease: a longitudinal study.International journal of emergency medicine · 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 evaluate the trends in utilization and results of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA study) for detection of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in the Emergency Department (ED) during different phases of COVID-19 public health emergency.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of CTPA studies ordered through our ED in the months of March through May during five consecutive years from 2019 to 2023, designated as pre-pandemic, early, ongoing, recovery, and post-pandemic periods respectively. Collected characteristics included patient age, patient sex, and result of the study.
resultsThe utilization of CTPA studies for ED patients increased during the early, ongoing, and recovery periods. CTPA study utilization in the post-pandemic period was not significantly different from the pre-pandemic period (p = 0.08). No significant difference in CTPA study utilization was noted in the other periods when stratified by age group or sex, compared to the pre-pandemic period. The positivity rate of acute PE in ED patients was not significantly different in other periods compared to the pre-pandemic period.
conclusionAt our institution, the utilization and positivity rates of CTPA studies for the ED patients were not significantly different in the post-pandemic period compared to the pre-pandemic period. While studies spanning a larger timeframe and involving multiple institutions are needed to test the applicability of this observation to a wider patient population beyond our defined post-pandemic period, we conclude that our study provides some confidence to the ordering provider and the radiologist in embracing the end of COVID-19 public health emergency by the WHO and the United States HHS with respect to CTPA studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38519743What 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.