Observational studyEmergency radiology2026
CT oral contrast and contemporary imaging pathways for suspected oesophageal perforation in the emergency department: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Emergency 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate contemporary computed tomography (CT) imaging pathways for Emergency Department (ED) patients with suspected oesophageal perforation or leak, with a particular focus on oral contrast utilisation, radiologic findings and downstream investigations following the index CT examination.
methodsWe performed a single-centre retrospective observational study of all adult ED patients who underwent CT imaging including the chest for suspected oesophageal perforation or leak between January 2015 and March 2026. Patients were identified through radiology database search. Demographics, clinical indications, oral contrast use, radiologic findings and investigations performed within five days of the index CT were recorded.
resultsA total of 107 patients were included, with six (5.6%) confirmed oesophageal perforations. Oral contrast was administered in 62 (57.9%) CT examinations. Overall, 45 patients (42.1%) underwent downstream investigations, with similar rates regardless of oral contrast administration (43.5% vs. 40.0%). However, repeat CT was less frequent following oral contrast-enhanced CT (3.2% vs. 17.8%). Among patients with confirmed perforation, direct signs including oesophageal wall defect and extraluminal contrast leak were common (66.7% each), whilst indirect signs were also frequent present, including pneumomediastinum and pleural effusion (83.3% each). Pneumomediastinum was also frequently observed in patients without perforation.
conclusionRates of downstream investigation were similar regardless of oral contrast administration, however, repeat CT was less frequently performed following oral contrast-enhanced examinations. These findings suggest that oral contrast may influence subsequent imaging pathways. Prospective studies are warranted to determine whether selective oral contrast administration can improve diagnostic confidence while reducing unnecessary CT examinations.
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.