Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39310627›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Correlation Between the Revised Physiological Trauma Score and CT Scan Results.

Maan Jamjoom, Faisal A Boker, Ahmad Wazzan, Moath M Alshanqity

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maan JamjoomEmergency Medicine, Ministry of the National Guard-Health Affairs, Jeddah, SAU.
Faisal A BokerEmergency Medicine, Ministry of the National Guard-Health Affairs, Jeddah, SAU.
Ahmad WazzanEmergency Medicine, Ministry of the National Guard-Health Affairs, Jeddah, SAU.
Moath M AlshanqityEmergency Medicine, Ministry of the National Guard-Health Affairs, Jeddah, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical decision rulemajor traumamedical triagemultidetector computed tomographyprehospital trauma

Identifiers

PMID39310627
PMCPMC11416199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.