ArticleEmergency radiology2025
Imaging requests for acute abdominal pain in the emergency department: a retrospective cross-sectional study.
Article in Emergency radiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether the appropriateness of imaging requests (AIR) for acute abdominal pain (AAP) in two private hospitals in Santiago (2023) was associated with higher diagnostic yield, and to explore predictors through a multivariable model.
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study included patients aged ≥ 15 years presenting with AAP who underwent US, CT, or MRI. AIR was classified according to the ACR Appropriateness Criteria, and radiology reports were categorized as confirmatory or normal. A multivariable logistic regression model, incorporating interactions between AIR, imaging modality, and age, was applied to identify predictors of diagnostic yield.
resultsA total of 189 imaging studies were analyzed (75 US, 62 CT, 52 MRI). Overall, 57.7% of requests were appropriate. Confirmatory findings occurred in 66.1% of cases, significantly more frequent in appropriate requests (84.4%) than in inappropriate ones (41.3%; p < 0.01). Inappropriateness reduced diagnostic yield from 78.3% to 17.4% in US and from 91.5% to 25.9% in CT, with no significant difference for MRI (86% vs. 81.3%). Older age was independently associated with higher probabilities of confirmatory findings. Epigastric pain and acute gastroenteritis were disproportionately linked to overuse, while hepatobiliary conditions showed predominantly appropriate use. The model demonstrated high discriminatory performance (AUC = 0.88).
conclusionAdherence to ACR criteria was strongly associated with improved diagnostic yield in AAP, particularly for CT and US. Age and local epidemiology, including high biliary disease prevalence, influenced modality performance. These findings support context-sensitive decision-support tools and prospective studies to refine imaging strategies and enhance patient safety in emergency care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40957998What 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.