We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Minor Blunt Thoracic Trauma in the Emergency Department: Sensitivity and Specificity of Chest Ultralow-Dose Computed Tomography Compared With Conventional Radiography.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 2019 June
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of chest ultralow-dose computed tomography (CT) compared with chest radiograph for minor blunt thoracic trauma.
METHODS: One hundred sixty patients with minor blunt thoracic trauma were evaluated first by chest radiograph and subsequently with a double-acquisition nonenhanced chest CT protocol: reference CT and ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction. Two study radiologists independently assessed injuries with a structured report and subjective image quality and calculated certainty of diagnostic confidence level.
RESULTS: Ultralow-dose CT had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% compared with reference CT in the detection of injuries (187 lesions) in 104 patients. Chest radiograph detected abnormalities in 82 patients (79% of the population), with lower sensitivity and specificity compared with ultralow-dose CT (P<.05). Despite an only fair interobserver agreement for ultralow-dose CT image quality (κ=0.26), the diagnostic confidence level was certain for 95.6% of patients (chest radiograph=79.3%). Ultralow-dose CT effective dose (0.203 mSv [SD 0.029 mSv]) was similar (P=.14) to that of chest radiograph (0.175 mSv [SD 0.155 mSv]) and significantly less (P<.001) than that of reference CT (1.193 mSv [SD 0.459 mSv]).
CONCLUSION: Ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction conveyed a radiation dose similar to that of chest radiograph and was more reliable than a radiographic study for minor blunt thoracic trauma assessment. Radiologists, regardless of experience with ultralow-dose CT, were more confident with chest ultralow-dose CT than chest radiograph.
METHODS: One hundred sixty patients with minor blunt thoracic trauma were evaluated first by chest radiograph and subsequently with a double-acquisition nonenhanced chest CT protocol: reference CT and ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction. Two study radiologists independently assessed injuries with a structured report and subjective image quality and calculated certainty of diagnostic confidence level.
RESULTS: Ultralow-dose CT had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% compared with reference CT in the detection of injuries (187 lesions) in 104 patients. Chest radiograph detected abnormalities in 82 patients (79% of the population), with lower sensitivity and specificity compared with ultralow-dose CT (P<.05). Despite an only fair interobserver agreement for ultralow-dose CT image quality (κ=0.26), the diagnostic confidence level was certain for 95.6% of patients (chest radiograph=79.3%). Ultralow-dose CT effective dose (0.203 mSv [SD 0.029 mSv]) was similar (P=.14) to that of chest radiograph (0.175 mSv [SD 0.155 mSv]) and significantly less (P<.001) than that of reference CT (1.193 mSv [SD 0.459 mSv]).
CONCLUSION: Ultralow-dose CT with iterative reconstruction conveyed a radiation dose similar to that of chest radiograph and was more reliable than a radiographic study for minor blunt thoracic trauma assessment. Radiologists, regardless of experience with ultralow-dose CT, were more confident with chest ultralow-dose CT than chest radiograph.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Septic shock in the immunocompromised cancer patient: a narrative review.Critical Care : the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum 2024 August 30
Proteinuria and Progression of Renal Damage: The Main Pathogenetic Mechanisms and Pharmacological Approach.Medicina 2024 November 6
New strategies for the treatment of hyperkalemia.European Journal of Internal Medicine 2024 November 2
Hemodialysis Vascular Access: Core Curriculum 2025.American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2024 December 2
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app