Trial reportLa Radiologia medica2025
Evaluating the reproducibility of AAST-OIS CT scoring for splenic injuries: the need for standardization.
Trial report in La Radiologia medica, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe spleen is frequently injured in blunt abdominal trauma, and proper management depends on accurate CT assessment using the AAST-OIS scoring system. However, the reproducibility of CT scoring in trauma patients remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To assess the reproducibility of AAST-OIS scoring for high-grade splenic injuries (grades 3, 4, and 5) without vascular anomalies on initial CT scans and to evaluate the clinical impact of misclassification, particularly in relation to hemorrhagic complications.
methodsThis study is an ancillary analysis of the SPLASH-randomized clinical trial, which involved 6 Level 1 trauma centers in France. Initial CT scans were scored by the trauma center's radiology team and then independently reviewed by two expert radiologists. Interobserver agreement as assessed between the trauma center radiologists and the expert reviewers, as well as between the two independent experts. The study also examined whether underestimation of injury severity influenced early clinical outcomes.
resultsThe agreement between trauma center radiologists and expert reviewers was moderate, with kappa coefficients of 0.493 using linear weighting and 0.511 using quadratic weighting, whereas inter-expert agreement was excellent (kappa: 0.905 linear, 0.917 quadratic). The primary source of discordance was the underestimation of parenchymal devascularization, which frequently led to misclassification of grade 4 injuries as grade 3. hile overall complications on Day 5 did not significantly differ between correctly classified and misclassified patients (p = 0.0593), patients whose injuries were underestimated (false negatives) had a threefold higher risk of hemorrhagic complications compared to the rest of the cohort (p = 0.0351).
conclusionThis study highlights the moderate reproducibility of AAST-OIS scoring in emergency trauma settings, emphasizing the need for standardized evaluation protocols to improve diagnostic consistency. Given the higher risk of hemorrhagic complications in underestimated cases, increased awareness of parenchymal devascularization and improved radiological training are essential to optimizing patient outcomes. The integration of AI-based decision-support tools and structured reporting templates may enhance real-time injury classification and reduce observer variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40459646What 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.