ArticleCureus2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Bowel Necrosis in Acute Abdomen With Bowel Ischemia.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Immediate diagnosis of bowel necrosis in acute abdominal conditions is essential for proper treatment. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has recently emerged as a tool to assess intestinal viability in bowel ischemia. However, DECT's diagnostic accuracy for bowel necrosis in clinical practice remains undefined. Methods This single-center retrospective cohort study at a Japanese tertiary care hospital assessed DECT's diagnostic accuracy for bowel necrosis. We included patients who underwent emergency operations for abdominal conditions with bowel ischemia from April 2013 to March 2022. Patients without DECT were excluded. The reference standard was bowel necrosis determined by surgical findings. Four evaluators (two residents and two specialists) independently reviewed DECT images blinded to confirmed diagnoses. We calculated pooled and individual sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and accuracy. Results Twenty-eight patients were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.77) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.92), respectively. Residents demonstrated higher sensitivity than specialists. Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.76 (95% CI, 2.02-7.00) and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.29-0.61). Overall accuracy was 0.73 (95%CI, 0.64-0.81). Inter-evaluator agreement was moderate (Fleiss' kappa, 0.42). Conclusion DECT demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy for bowel necrosis in this Japanese tertiary care setting. While clinically valuable, DECT's diagnostic capability was not definitive. To optimize DECT's potential, future research should employ disease-specific image reconstruction techniques and provide evaluators with specialized DECT interpretation training.
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.