Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40851046›Full record

ArticleRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025

CT evaluation of gastrointestinal system perforations: A retrospective comparative analysis between retroperitoneal and intraperitoneal perforation sites.

Ummuhan Ebru Karabulut, Huseyin Toprak, Yagmur Basak Polat, Zeynep Donmez, Ahmet Akcay, Mehmet Ali Gultekin, Temel Fatih Yilmaz

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Ummuhan Ebru KarabulutDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv., 34214, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey. uebrukarabulut@gmail.com.
Huseyin ToprakDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv., 34214, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Yagmur Basak PolatDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv., 34214, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Zeynep DonmezDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv., 34214, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ahmet AkcayDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv., 34214, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mehmet Ali GultekinDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv., 34214, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Temel Fatih YilmazDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Adnan Menderes Blv., 34214, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorrect identification of the etiology and anatomical location of perforations is paramount for ensuring optimal therapeutic intervention and surgical planning in cases of gastrointestinal tract perforation. PURPOSE: This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the distinctive multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) findings of intraperitoneal and retro-/extraperitoneal perforation by comparing the locations of free air in the abdomen and other imaging findings. MATERIAL AND

methodsA total of 226 patients with acute abdominal pain who visited the emergency department and underwent contrast-enhanced CT between January 2016 and November 2023 were included. The study consisted of 146 male and 80 female patients with a median age of 53.5 years. Surgical findings determined the site of perforation in all cases. Two radiologists evaluated the CT images in a consensus blind to operative findings, assessing the presence of specific air distributions and strong predictors of gastrointestinal tract perforation.

resultsThe study included 192 intraperitoneal and 34 retro-/extraperitoneal perforation cases. Subphrenic free air and periportal free air were statistically significant in differentiating intraperitoneal gastrointestinal tract perforation among specific air distributions. Conversely, the presence of free air in the minor pelvis, right lower quadrant, left lower quadrant, and retroperitoneum was significant in differentiating retro-/extraperitoneal gastrointestinal tract perforation. Among strong imaging predictors, only ascites was statistically significant in differentiating intraperitoneal from retro-/extraperitoneal perforations.

conclusionFindings from MDCT may serve as predictive indicators for the precise localization of gastrointestinal tract perforations, which is crucial for appropriate management and surgical planning.

Indexed as

Intestinal PerforationMultidetector Computed TomographyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overContrast MediaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetroperitoneal SpaceRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaAbdominal radiologyAcute abdomenEmergeny radiologyPeriportal free airPneumoperitoneum

Identifiers

PMID40851046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.