ArticleEmergency radiology2024
Clinical prediction scale approach derived from a retrospective study to reduce the number of urgent, low-value cranial CT scans.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFifty percent of cranial CT scans performed achieve no benefit and entail risks. Our aim is to determine the yield of non-traumatic urgent cranial-CT and develop a pretest clinical probability scale approach.
methodsAdult patients seen in our emergency department between 2017-2021 and referred for urgent cranial-CT for non-traumatic reasons were retrospectively recruited and randomly selected. Presenting complaint (PC), demographic variables, Relevant radiological findings (RRF) on the urgent cranial-CT and Relevant clinical-radiological findings (RCRF: admission need or RRF detection on the urgent cranial-CT or cranial CT/MRI in the following three months) were recruited.
resultsWe recruited 702 patients, with median age 62 [47-76] years, 363 (51.7%) females. RCRF were observed in 404 (57.55%); of these, 352 (50.1%) required admission. RRF were detected in 190 (27.06%): 36 acute ischemic and 27 acute hemorrhagic lesions, 115 masses, 9 edema, and 27 hydrocephalus. Predictive PC for urgent cranial-CT were motor, speech, sensory deficits, sudden alteration of mental status, epileptic seizure, cognitive impairment, neurological symptoms in cancer patients, acute headache without a prior history and with meningeal signs; nausea, vomiting, or hypertensive crisis; visual deficits, and dizziness. This algorithm provided sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV, 95%CI in brackets) of 92.1% (89-94.5%), 27.5% (22.5-33.0%), 63.3% (59.2-67.2%), and 71.9% (62.7-80.0%), to diagnose RCRF, and 97.4% (93.4-99.1%), 21.3% (17.8-25.1%), 31.5% (27.7-35.4%), and 95.6% (90.1-98.6%), to diagnose RRF. In patients not requiring admission (n = 350), the NPV for RRF was 98.8% (93.6-100%); the negative likelihood ratio 0.08 (0.01-0.57), and sensitivity remained at 97.8% (82.2-99.9%). Applying it would have avoided performing 85/350 urgent cranial-CT (24.29%). To find one RRF, we would have gone from performing 7.8 (350/45) to 5.9 (265/45) CTs, failing to diagnose 1/45 (2.2%) RRF.
conclusionsThis proposed clinical scale could potentially decrease 24% of urgent cranial-CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39060810What 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.