ArticleEmergency radiology2024
Capturing anatomy in computed tomography scans for genital pathology.
Article in Emergency radiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this cross-sectional study, we aimed to characterize how frequently the anatomy of interest (AOI) was excluded when evaluating genital pathology using the current CT pelvis protocol recommended by the American College of Radiology and evaluate how AOI exclusion affects patient management.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed medical records, using diagnosis and CPT codes, of patients admitted with genital pathology who obtained a CT scan at our institution from July 1, 2020-April 30, 2023. Baseline patient demographics were included. Data about each index CT scan (scan obtained at our institution) were recorded and assessed for exclusion of the AOI. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the rate of AOI exclusion and to compare patient management between patients with AOI excluded versus those without AOI exclusion.
results113 presentations for genital pathology included an index CT scan and were included for analysis. Patients were primarily men (98%) with a mean age of 53.1 years (SD 13.9). The most common diagnoses were Fournier's gangrene (35%), scrotal abscess (22%) and unspecified infection (19%). 26/113 scans (23%) did not capture the entire AOI. When the AOI was missed during the index scan, there was a higher rate of obtaining additional scans (38% vs. 21%), but a similar rate of intervention (77% vs. 63%) when compared to index scans that captured the entire AOI. 35 scans (31%) had protocol-extending instructions; index scans that captured the entire AOI were more likely to have specific protocol-extending instructions (38% vs. 8% p < 0.01).
conclusionsCreating a specific CT protocol for genital pathology could decrease the amount of inappropriate irradiation and improve AOI capture rates without relying on specific request for protocol deviation.
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.