ArticleSA journal of radiology2026
Article in SA journal of radiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Blunt chest trauma (BCT) is a frequent manifestation of traumatic injury, either as isolated thoracic injury or in the setting of polytrauma. Objectives: Several chest trauma scores (CTSs) exist based on clinical, biochemical and imaging findings to assist in the risk stratification of patients who have sustained blunt chest trauma. These injuries are often not initially clinically evident and a risk stratification tool serves to identify patients at risk for pulmonary compromise and to establish early diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to improve morbidity and mortality. Method: Patient data were obtained from the Greys Hospital Emergency Department's triage books. The images for patients within the study sample were scored under the categories of age, number of rib fractures, bilaterality of rib fractures, presence and significance of pulmonary contusions, and pleural-based injury. Patients were classified as either critical or non-critical using final disposition as a surrogate. The seminal CTS was initially calculated, following which a novel South African chest trauma score (SA-CTS) was hypothesised and computed based on the chest X-ray alone for ease of applicability and reproducibility in resource-constrained settings. Results: A conventional CTS ≥ 5 was clinically significant for a critical outcome. However, with the SA-CTS, a score ≥ 4 was found to be statistically significant. Age was not found to be a significant contributing factor. Pleural-based injuries were found to be contributory factors to a critical outcome. Conclusion: Clinical prediction models serve in the risk stratification and early identification and pre-emptive management of patients at high risk for clinical decompensation. Based on the results, the incorporation of the SA-CTS into daily practice in the management of BCT patients is proposed. Contribution: This will prove especially useful in triggering early up-referral for both advanced imaging and tertiary level care in a resource limited setting.
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.