ArticleRadiology case reports2024
A balance of clinical assessment and use of diagnostic imaging: A CT colonography comparative case report.
Article in Radiology case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Computer tomography colonography (CTC) is a non-invasive procedure which has replaced barium enema. CTC uses helical images of a cleansed and gas-distended colon for the diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. This case study compares 2 patients: one with positive pathology (patient A) and another as comparator (patient B) with a similar pathology to discuss and debate possible treatment pathways. Patient (A) CTC showed 2 polyps: 6 mm and 10 mm, which the colorectal surgeons thought only needed follow-up. Our comparator (patient B) displayed a similar pathology which measured 9 mm. In this case (patient B), there was mutual agreement with the surgeons for polypectomy but without haematology involvement which was atypical of the usual pathway. The surgeons did not see the 9 mm polyp at polypectomy which could be due to observer error or radiology reporter error. Given that conventional colonoscopy is more sensitive in detecting polyps; a repeat of both tests could confirm the presence of polyp, however, the surgeons gave patient (B) a virtual appointment and requested a repeat CTC in 12 months. In colorectal medicine there can be variations in the treatment of patients with polyps. While a repeat of both tests could confirm the presence of polyp in patient (B), the surgeons' decisions regarding the patient's treatment reflected a balance of confidence in clinical assessment and use of diagnostic imaging which can reduce unnecessary requests and use of diagnostic tests.
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.