ArticleBioinformation2026
Clinical assessment versus radiological investigations: Predictive accuracy for intra-abdominal injury after blunt trauma.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blunt abdominal trauma remains a critical biomedical problem because clinical examination alone has limited sensitivity and negative predictive value for detecting intra abdominal injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. Therefore, it is of interest to measure the clinical assessment of the diagnostic value of radiological versus clinical investigation with 100 patients with blunt abdominal trauma aged between 20-60 years in a tertiary care center in Rewa, India (April 2021- June 2022). Most prevalent was road traffic accidents (50%), followed by spleen (25%), clinical signs were pain (98%) and tenderness (90%), with the USG/X-ray (100%) and CECT (60%) leading to 70% conservative treatment with 94% good and 6% death. Thus, the radiological imaging proved to be a better diagnostic tool than clinical assessment of intra-abdominal injuries.
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.