ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2025
CT pan-scanning versus targeted imaging among older adults after ground level falls.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing CT resource use in geriatric trauma: is less sometimes more?Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ground level falls (GLFs) among older adults are responsible for millions of injuries. Routine pan-scanning (CT imaging of the head, chest, abdomen and pelvis) is commonly employed; however, we lack robust evidence of its benefit. We investigated whether pan-scanning identifies a larger proportion of patients with significant injury or injury requiring procedural intervention and hypothesized resuscitation area findings-including radiographs, ultrasound, and external signs of injury-would detect these injuries. Methods: We queried our institutional trauma registry data for patients ≥65 years presenting to our level 1 trauma center after GLFs. Our primary outcome was injury requiring procedural intervention. LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression models were fit using cross-validation to identify predictors of significant injury to the head, chest, and pelvis/lower extremity from patient characteristics and resuscitation area findings. Results: 598 patients were included, among whom 17% underwent pan-scan. External signs of injury were associated with increased odds of significant injury in the head (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.16), chest (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.46), and extremity/pelvis (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.10). Chest (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.23) and pelvic X-ray (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.40) were also associated with increased odds of significant injury. 17 patients required procedural interventions for head injuries and 2 for the chest. No patients had a significant injury requiring any procedures for the abdomen. Conclusions: Our study suggests resuscitation area findings may direct targeted imaging in the chest and abdomen/pelvis, but whether individual risk and institutional burden associated with pan-scanning is outweighed by its ease requires further study. Level of evidence study type: Prognostic and Epidemiological, Level IV.
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.