ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2026
Fast, accurate, and cost-effective: E-FAST's breakthrough in optimizing thoracic trauma management.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2026. 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
Objective: Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) for detecting pneumothorax, hemothorax, and pulmonary contusions using thoracic computed tomography (CT) as the reference standard. Material and Methods: Retrospective analysis of 202 adult thoracic trauma patients (2016-2021). E-FAST diagnostic accuracy was calculated using CT as reference standard. Results: E-FAST was performed in 149 patients (74%), who presented with significantly higher injury severity (injury severity score: 25 vs. 17; p=0.018) and hemodynamic instability. E-FAST demonstrated 90% sensitivity for pneumothorax, 86% for hemothorax, and 95% specificity for both conditions. Positive predictive values were 92% for pneumothorax and 89% for hemothorax. E-FAST was superior to chest radiography for detecting pleural complications and facilitated immediate thoracic drainage in 39.1% of cases. Cost analysis revealed four-fold reduction compared to CT. Conclusion: E-FAST demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for pneumothorax and hemothorax compared to CT, while also showing superior performance to conventional radiography. E-FAST facilitates rapid bedside assessment and immediate surgical decision-making in critically injured patients. However, the significant selection bias toward critically injured patients limits the conclusions regarding the independent impact on clinical outcomes.
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.