Plain abdominal radiographs and abdominal CT scans for nontraumatic abdominal pain—Added value?
We conducted a retrospective descriptive study to determine the value of plain abdominal radiographs in emergency department (ED) patients also receiving abdominal computed tomography scans (CT) for the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal, back and flank pain (NTAP). Cases were identified through r...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of emergency medicine 1999-11, Vol.17 (7), p.668-671 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 671 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 668 |
| container_title | The American journal of emergency medicine |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Nagurney, J.Tobias Brown, David F.M Novelline, Robert A Kim, Jennifer Fischer, Randy H |
| description | We conducted a retrospective descriptive study to determine the value of plain abdominal radiographs in emergency department (ED) patients also receiving abdominal computed tomography scans (CT) for the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal, back and flank pain (NTAP). Cases were identified through radiology log books. Medical records and radiology reports were reviewed to determine whether the CT confirmed the findings of the plain abdominal radiographs, and whether the clinical course confirmed the results of either. Test characteristics for the plain abdominal radiograph and for the CT, using the clinical course including subsequent invasive procedures as the gold standard, were calculated. Of 177 patients who received CTs, 97 (55%) also received plain abdominal radiographs. Among the 74 patients who were admitted to the hospital and had complete data, the sensitivity and specificity for the plain abdominal radiographs were .43 and .75 respectively, compared to .91 and .94 for the CT scan (
P
sens. < .05,
P
spec. < .05). In 4 patients (5%), both studies failed to identify pathology shown in a subsequent procedure. In ED patients with NTAP, the plain abdominal radiograph may have some value as a screening tool; however, in patients in whom a CT is likely to be ordered anyway, a plain abdominal radiograph is unhelpful and often misleading. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0735-6757(99)90155-9 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69354428</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0735675799901559</els_id><sourcerecordid>69354428</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-eaeb4a626c0d1d561779c0c25eb6eba45e79615df9c37bd172bd0b591a728eed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0MFO3DAQgGELtYIt5RFa5VAhegj1JLEdn1ZoRVskJCoVztbEnrSuEmdrJ0i98RA8YZ-EwK5gb5x88Ddj62fsA_BT4CC__OSqFLlUQp1o_VlzECLXe2wBoizyGhS8YYtncsDepfSHc4BKVPvsALjQitdiwfBHhz5k2Lih9wG7LKLzw6-I698pw-B2blbXWbIYUtYOMQtDGCNOPY7e7pj1vOz_3f2Zc-SyW-wmWr5nb1vsEh1tz0N28_X8evU9v7z6drE6u8xtqfmYE1JToSyk5Q6ckKCUttwWghpJDVaClJYgXKttqRoHqmgcb4QGVEVN5MpDdrzZu47D34nSaHqfLHUdBhqmZKQuRVUV9QzFBto4pBSpNevoe4z_DHDz2NY8tTWP4YzW5qmt0fPcx-0DU9OT25naxJzBpy3AOVTXRgzWpxdXcAG1nNlyw2iucespmmQ9BUvOR7KjcYN_5ScPRaCX-A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69354428</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Plain abdominal radiographs and abdominal CT scans for nontraumatic abdominal pain—Added value?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Nagurney, J.Tobias ; Brown, David F.M ; Novelline, Robert A ; Kim, Jennifer ; Fischer, Randy H</creator><creatorcontrib>Nagurney, J.Tobias ; Brown, David F.M ; Novelline, Robert A ; Kim, Jennifer ; Fischer, Randy H</creatorcontrib><description>We conducted a retrospective descriptive study to determine the value of plain abdominal radiographs in emergency department (ED) patients also receiving abdominal computed tomography scans (CT) for the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal, back and flank pain (NTAP). Cases were identified through radiology log books. Medical records and radiology reports were reviewed to determine whether the CT confirmed the findings of the plain abdominal radiographs, and whether the clinical course confirmed the results of either. Test characteristics for the plain abdominal radiograph and for the CT, using the clinical course including subsequent invasive procedures as the gold standard, were calculated. Of 177 patients who received CTs, 97 (55%) also received plain abdominal radiographs. Among the 74 patients who were admitted to the hospital and had complete data, the sensitivity and specificity for the plain abdominal radiographs were .43 and .75 respectively, compared to .91 and .94 for the CT scan (
P
sens. < .05,
P
spec. < .05). In 4 patients (5%), both studies failed to identify pathology shown in a subsequent procedure. In ED patients with NTAP, the plain abdominal radiograph may have some value as a screening tool; however, in patients in whom a CT is likely to be ordered anyway, a plain abdominal radiograph is unhelpful and often misleading.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0735-6757</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8171</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0735-6757(99)90155-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10597085</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJEMEN</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>abdominal pain ; Abdominal Pain - diagnostic imaging ; Abdominal Pain - etiology ; abdominal radiographs ; acute abdomen ; Adult ; Aged ; Back Pain - diagnostic imaging ; Back Pain - etiology ; Bias ; Biological and medical sciences ; CT scan ; Diagnostic Errors ; Digestive system ; Emergency Treatment - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Male ; Mass Screening - methods ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Patient Selection ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Single-Blind Method ; Time Factors ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards</subject><ispartof>The American journal of emergency medicine, 1999-11, Vol.17 (7), p.668-671</ispartof><rights>1999</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-eaeb4a626c0d1d561779c0c25eb6eba45e79615df9c37bd172bd0b591a728eed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-eaeb4a626c0d1d561779c0c25eb6eba45e79615df9c37bd172bd0b591a728eed3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675799901559$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,3537,23911,23912,25120,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1205186$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10597085$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nagurney, J.Tobias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, David F.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novelline, Robert A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Randy H</creatorcontrib><title>Plain abdominal radiographs and abdominal CT scans for nontraumatic abdominal pain—Added value?</title><title>The American journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><description>We conducted a retrospective descriptive study to determine the value of plain abdominal radiographs in emergency department (ED) patients also receiving abdominal computed tomography scans (CT) for the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal, back and flank pain (NTAP). Cases were identified through radiology log books. Medical records and radiology reports were reviewed to determine whether the CT confirmed the findings of the plain abdominal radiographs, and whether the clinical course confirmed the results of either. Test characteristics for the plain abdominal radiograph and for the CT, using the clinical course including subsequent invasive procedures as the gold standard, were calculated. Of 177 patients who received CTs, 97 (55%) also received plain abdominal radiographs. Among the 74 patients who were admitted to the hospital and had complete data, the sensitivity and specificity for the plain abdominal radiographs were .43 and .75 respectively, compared to .91 and .94 for the CT scan (
P
sens. < .05,
P
spec. < .05). In 4 patients (5%), both studies failed to identify pathology shown in a subsequent procedure. In ED patients with NTAP, the plain abdominal radiograph may have some value as a screening tool; however, in patients in whom a CT is likely to be ordered anyway, a plain abdominal radiograph is unhelpful and often misleading.</description><subject>abdominal pain</subject><subject>Abdominal Pain - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Abdominal Pain - etiology</subject><subject>abdominal radiographs</subject><subject>acute abdomen</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Back Pain - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Back Pain - etiology</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>CT scan</subject><subject>Diagnostic Errors</subject><subject>Digestive system</subject><subject>Emergency Treatment - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards</subject><issn>0735-6757</issn><issn>1532-8171</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0MFO3DAQgGELtYIt5RFa5VAhegj1JLEdn1ZoRVskJCoVztbEnrSuEmdrJ0i98RA8YZ-EwK5gb5x88Ddj62fsA_BT4CC__OSqFLlUQp1o_VlzECLXe2wBoizyGhS8YYtncsDepfSHc4BKVPvsALjQitdiwfBHhz5k2Lih9wG7LKLzw6-I698pw-B2blbXWbIYUtYOMQtDGCNOPY7e7pj1vOz_3f2Zc-SyW-wmWr5nb1vsEh1tz0N28_X8evU9v7z6drE6u8xtqfmYE1JToSyk5Q6ckKCUttwWghpJDVaClJYgXKttqRoHqmgcb4QGVEVN5MpDdrzZu47D34nSaHqfLHUdBhqmZKQuRVUV9QzFBto4pBSpNevoe4z_DHDz2NY8tTWP4YzW5qmt0fPcx-0DU9OT25naxJzBpy3AOVTXRgzWpxdXcAG1nNlyw2iucespmmQ9BUvOR7KjcYN_5ScPRaCX-A</recordid><startdate>19991101</startdate><enddate>19991101</enddate><creator>Nagurney, J.Tobias</creator><creator>Brown, David F.M</creator><creator>Novelline, Robert A</creator><creator>Kim, Jennifer</creator><creator>Fischer, Randy H</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19991101</creationdate><title>Plain abdominal radiographs and abdominal CT scans for nontraumatic abdominal pain—Added value?</title><author>Nagurney, J.Tobias ; Brown, David F.M ; Novelline, Robert A ; Kim, Jennifer ; Fischer, Randy H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-eaeb4a626c0d1d561779c0c25eb6eba45e79615df9c37bd172bd0b591a728eed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>abdominal pain</topic><topic>Abdominal Pain - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Abdominal Pain - etiology</topic><topic>abdominal radiographs</topic><topic>acute abdomen</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Back Pain - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Back Pain - etiology</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>CT scan</topic><topic>Diagnostic Errors</topic><topic>Digestive system</topic><topic>Emergency Treatment - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nagurney, J.Tobias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, David F.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novelline, Robert A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Randy H</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nagurney, J.Tobias</au><au>Brown, David F.M</au><au>Novelline, Robert A</au><au>Kim, Jennifer</au><au>Fischer, Randy H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Plain abdominal radiographs and abdominal CT scans for nontraumatic abdominal pain—Added value?</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><date>1999-11-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>668</spage><epage>671</epage><pages>668-671</pages><issn>0735-6757</issn><eissn>1532-8171</eissn><coden>AJEMEN</coden><abstract>We conducted a retrospective descriptive study to determine the value of plain abdominal radiographs in emergency department (ED) patients also receiving abdominal computed tomography scans (CT) for the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal, back and flank pain (NTAP). Cases were identified through radiology log books. Medical records and radiology reports were reviewed to determine whether the CT confirmed the findings of the plain abdominal radiographs, and whether the clinical course confirmed the results of either. Test characteristics for the plain abdominal radiograph and for the CT, using the clinical course including subsequent invasive procedures as the gold standard, were calculated. Of 177 patients who received CTs, 97 (55%) also received plain abdominal radiographs. Among the 74 patients who were admitted to the hospital and had complete data, the sensitivity and specificity for the plain abdominal radiographs were .43 and .75 respectively, compared to .91 and .94 for the CT scan (
P
sens. < .05,
P
spec. < .05). In 4 patients (5%), both studies failed to identify pathology shown in a subsequent procedure. In ED patients with NTAP, the plain abdominal radiograph may have some value as a screening tool; however, in patients in whom a CT is likely to be ordered anyway, a plain abdominal radiograph is unhelpful and often misleading.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia, PA</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>10597085</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0735-6757(99)90155-9</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0735-6757 |
| ispartof | The American journal of emergency medicine, 1999-11, Vol.17 (7), p.668-671 |
| issn | 0735-6757 1532-8171 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69354428 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | abdominal pain Abdominal Pain - diagnostic imaging Abdominal Pain - etiology abdominal radiographs acute abdomen Adult Aged Back Pain - diagnostic imaging Back Pain - etiology Bias Biological and medical sciences CT scan Diagnostic Errors Digestive system Emergency Treatment - methods Female Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Male Mass Screening - methods Medical sciences Middle Aged Patient Selection Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry Reproducibility of Results Retrospective Studies Sensitivity and Specificity Single-Blind Method Time Factors Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards |
| title | Plain abdominal radiographs and abdominal CT scans for nontraumatic abdominal pain—Added value? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T00%3A22%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Plain%20abdominal%20radiographs%20and%20abdominal%20CT%20scans%20for%20nontraumatic%20abdominal%20pain%E2%80%94Added%20value?&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Nagurney,%20J.Tobias&rft.date=1999-11-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=668&rft.epage=671&rft.pages=668-671&rft.issn=0735-6757&rft.eissn=1532-8171&rft.coden=AJEMEN&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0735-6757(99)90155-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69354428%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69354428&rft_id=info:pmid/10597085&rft_els_id=S0735675799901559&rfr_iscdi=true |