ArticleCureus2024
Correlation Between the Revised Physiological Trauma Score and CT Scan Results.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background Trauma-scoring systems are used to triage patients and assist in clinical decision-making. Physiological trauma scores are used for quantitative evaluation of injury severity. However, only a few, such as the Revised Physiological Trauma Score (rPTS), have been proven effective in pre-clinical use. There is a constant need for clinical decision tools that aim to reduce the unnecessary use of CT scans among trauma patients. To our knowledge, no study has directly correlated the rPTS and CT findings. This study aimed to investigate whether the rPTS is correlated with CT scan results and can be used to decrease the use of CT. Methodology This retrospective chart review examined all patients who underwent a pan-CT for trauma in the Emergency Department of King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah, from 2008 to 2012. Results We analyzed 235 patients. There was a significant difference in the mean rPTS between those with negative versus positive pan-CT scans (11.4 ± 1.3 vs. 10.9 ± 1.7, respectively; p = 0.032). Furthermore, the rate of positive CT scans was significantly higher in those with an rPTS <11 than those with an rPTS of 11 or 12 (87% vs. 74.1%, respectively; p = 0.044). However, 72.7% of patients with an rPTS of 12/12 had a positive pan-CT scan. Conclusions Despite the difference in the frequency of abnormal CT scans, too many patients with normal rPTS had abnormal CT findings. Therefore, the rPTS cannot be used to safely reduce the use of CT scans.
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.