ArticleBioinformation2026
Diagnostic accuracy of focused assessment with sonography in trauma for blunt abdominal injury: A prospective observational study.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
Blunt abdominal trauma is a major cause of preventable morbidity and mortality and rapid identification of intra-abdominal injury is critical for timely intervention. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) using computed tomography and operative findings as the composite reference standard in 250 adult patients. Intra- abdominal injury was confirmed in 26.0% of patients and FAST demonstrated a sensitivity of 76.9%, specificity of 91.9%, positive predictive value of 76.9%, negative predictive value of 91.9% and overall accuracy of 88.0%. Sensitivity was higher in hemodynamically unstable patients (90.5%) compared to stable patients (71.1%), while specificity remained high in both groups. Thus, FAST is a rapid and highly specific bedside tool that is particularly valuable for triaging unstable patients, although its moderate sensitivity necessitates confirmatory imaging in stable individuals.
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.