Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department

Kristy Thurston, Suma Magge, Robert Fuller, Anthony Voytovich, Jessica Lee, Robert Kozol

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focused scans will reveal pathology more often than screening scans. Treatment plans and patient outcomes were also compared between the two populations. Methods: This is a prospective study in which 100 patients who presented to an academic medical center with abdominal pain and underwent an abdominal CT were enrolled in the study. A chart review was later completed to gather ultimate outcome data for each of the enrolled subjects. Results: Of the 61 patients having a focused CT, pathology was identified on 63.9% of the scans, which did not differ significantly from the 65.4% of scans that revealed pathology in the screening group. In the focused group, anticipated admissions were reduced, but the reduction was not significant. The screening group did show a significant difference, with eight fewer patients being admitted than initially planned. The total number of patients deemed to require admission was significantly reduced by 15% following all CT scans. Conclusion: While there was no difference between the focused and screening groups in the rate of identifying pathology, there was a significant decline in number of patients requiring admission to the hospital in the "screening" CT group (when comparing emergency physicians' pre- and post-CT treatment plans).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)25-27
Number of pages3
JournalOpen Access Emergency Medicine
Volume2
StatePublished - Nov 29 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Abdominal Pain
Hospital Emergency Service
Tomography
Pathology
Patient Admission
Emergencies
Prospective Studies
Physicians
Therapeutics
Population

Keywords

  • Acute abdominal pain
  • Computed tomography
  • Emergency department
  • Focused
  • Screening

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Emergency

Cite this

Thurston, K., Magge, S., Fuller, R., Voytovich, A., Lee, J., & Kozol, R. (2010). Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department. Open Access Emergency Medicine, 2, 25-27.

Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department. / Thurston, Kristy; Magge, Suma; Fuller, Robert; Voytovich, Anthony; Lee, Jessica; Kozol, Robert.

In: Open Access Emergency Medicine, Vol. 2, 29.11.2010, p. 25-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Thurston, K, Magge, S, Fuller, R, Voytovich, A, Lee, J & Kozol, R 2010, 'Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department', Open Access Emergency Medicine, vol. 2, pp. 25-27.
Thurston, Kristy ; Magge, Suma ; Fuller, Robert ; Voytovich, Anthony ; Lee, Jessica ; Kozol, Robert. / Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department. In: Open Access Emergency Medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 2. pp. 25-27.
@article{734b812e7af64fe992765402ee0c3679,
title = "Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department",
abstract = "Objective: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focused scans will reveal pathology more often than screening scans. Treatment plans and patient outcomes were also compared between the two populations. Methods: This is a prospective study in which 100 patients who presented to an academic medical center with abdominal pain and underwent an abdominal CT were enrolled in the study. A chart review was later completed to gather ultimate outcome data for each of the enrolled subjects. Results: Of the 61 patients having a focused CT, pathology was identified on 63.9{\%} of the scans, which did not differ significantly from the 65.4{\%} of scans that revealed pathology in the screening group. In the focused group, anticipated admissions were reduced, but the reduction was not significant. The screening group did show a significant difference, with eight fewer patients being admitted than initially planned. The total number of patients deemed to require admission was significantly reduced by 15{\%} following all CT scans. Conclusion: While there was no difference between the focused and screening groups in the rate of identifying pathology, there was a significant decline in number of patients requiring admission to the hospital in the {"}screening{"} CT group (when comparing emergency physicians' pre- and post-CT treatment plans).",
keywords = "Acute abdominal pain, Computed tomography, Emergency department, Focused, Screening",
author = "Kristy Thurston and Suma Magge and Robert Fuller and Anthony Voytovich and Jessica Lee and Robert Kozol",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
day = "29",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "25--27",
journal = "Open Access Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1179-1500",
publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department

AU - Thurston, Kristy

AU - Magge, Suma

AU - Fuller, Robert

AU - Voytovich, Anthony

AU - Lee, Jessica

AU - Kozol, Robert

PY - 2010/11/29

Y1 - 2010/11/29

N2 - Objective: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focused scans will reveal pathology more often than screening scans. Treatment plans and patient outcomes were also compared between the two populations. Methods: This is a prospective study in which 100 patients who presented to an academic medical center with abdominal pain and underwent an abdominal CT were enrolled in the study. A chart review was later completed to gather ultimate outcome data for each of the enrolled subjects. Results: Of the 61 patients having a focused CT, pathology was identified on 63.9% of the scans, which did not differ significantly from the 65.4% of scans that revealed pathology in the screening group. In the focused group, anticipated admissions were reduced, but the reduction was not significant. The screening group did show a significant difference, with eight fewer patients being admitted than initially planned. The total number of patients deemed to require admission was significantly reduced by 15% following all CT scans. Conclusion: While there was no difference between the focused and screening groups in the rate of identifying pathology, there was a significant decline in number of patients requiring admission to the hospital in the "screening" CT group (when comparing emergency physicians' pre- and post-CT treatment plans).

AB - Objective: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focused scans will reveal pathology more often than screening scans. Treatment plans and patient outcomes were also compared between the two populations. Methods: This is a prospective study in which 100 patients who presented to an academic medical center with abdominal pain and underwent an abdominal CT were enrolled in the study. A chart review was later completed to gather ultimate outcome data for each of the enrolled subjects. Results: Of the 61 patients having a focused CT, pathology was identified on 63.9% of the scans, which did not differ significantly from the 65.4% of scans that revealed pathology in the screening group. In the focused group, anticipated admissions were reduced, but the reduction was not significant. The screening group did show a significant difference, with eight fewer patients being admitted than initially planned. The total number of patients deemed to require admission was significantly reduced by 15% following all CT scans. Conclusion: While there was no difference between the focused and screening groups in the rate of identifying pathology, there was a significant decline in number of patients requiring admission to the hospital in the "screening" CT group (when comparing emergency physicians' pre- and post-CT treatment plans).

KW - Acute abdominal pain

KW - Computed tomography

KW - Emergency department

KW - Focused

KW - Screening

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649280989&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649280989&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:78649280989

VL - 2

SP - 25

EP - 27

JO - Open Access Emergency Medicine

JF - Open Access Emergency Medicine

SN - 1179-1500

ER -