Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42751710›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Acute Thoracic Aortic Dissection: A Retrospective Study at an Urban ED in Australia.

Isabelle Ferarrio, Brian Burns

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Isabelle FerarrioEmergency Medicine, Northern Beaches Hospital, Sydney, AUS.
Brian BurnsEmergency Medicine, Northern Beaches Hospital, Sydney, AUS.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) is a rare but often fatal condition if left undiagnosed. This study reviewed the detection rate and clinical presentations of TAD in an urban Australian ED. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted from October 30, 2018 to March 30, 2023. The hospital imaging database (InteleViewer) was searched for radiology reports containing "aorta" or "aortic" together with "dissection" or the misspelling "disection." The search identified 25 patients with acute TAD who presented to the ED. Medical records were reviewed, and the Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS) was applied retrospectively. Cases missed in the ED were also reviewed. Results Nineteen cases (76%) were type A, and six (24%) were type B, corresponding to 8.6 cases per 100,000 ED visits. Hypertension was the most common risk factor (64%). Pain presentations varied, with only five patients (20%) experiencing classic, sudden-onset central chest pain radiating to the back. TAD was diagnosed by CT aortography in 22 cases (88%). Chest radiography was performed in 12 patients and showed signs of TAD in six (50%). Bedside echocardiography was performed in 12 cases and detected TAD in one-third. The median time from ED arrival to surgical intervention was 230 minutes (IQR, 165-480 minutes). Fifteen patients (60%) had an ADD-RS ≤1; however, most did not undergo D-dimer testing. One case was initially missed in the ED but was subsequently diagnosed after hospital admission and had a favourable outcome. Conclusions Our study demonstrates the variability in the presenting features of TAD. Within this cohort, patients with confirmed TAD experienced short intervention times and favourable outcomes. The absence of classic symptoms and ADD-RS features does not exclude a diagnosis of TAD. Improving staff education regarding key symptoms and signs may enhance early detection.

Indexed as

’ ‘acute aortic dissectionaortic dissectionchest painrisk factorsthoracic aorta

Identifiers

PMID42751710
PMCPMC13581338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.