| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Emergency Radiology |
1 From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Brown Medical School and Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI 02903. From the 1999 RSNA scientific assembly. Received July 26, 2001; revision requested September 17; final revision received April 1, 2002; accepted April 26. Address correspondence to W.W.M.S. (e-mail: william_mayo-smith@brown.edu).
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic yield of abdominal radiography with that of computed tomography (CT) in adult patients presenting to the emergency department with nontraumatic abdominal pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 1,000 consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain from April to June 1998 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 871 patients underwent abdominal radiography, and 188 underwent abdominal CT. The report interpretations of the abdominal radiographs and CT scans were divided into normal, nonspecific, and abnormal categories. Final discharge diagnoses were compared with the interpretations of the imaging examination results, and sensitivities and specificities of each modality were calculated and compared.
RESULTS: Interpretation of abdominal radiographs was nonspecific in 588 (68%) of 871 patients, normal in 200 (23%), and abnormal in 83 (10%). The highest sensitivity of abdominal radiography was 90% for intraabdominal foreign body and 49% for bowel obstruction. Abdominal radiography had 0% sensitivity for appendicitis, pyelonephritis, pancreatitis, and diverticulitis. Sensitivities of abdominal CT were highest for bowel obstruction and urolithiasis at 75% and 68%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Abdominal radiographs are not sensitive in the evaluation of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with nontraumatic abdominal pain.
© RSNA, 2002
Index terms: Abdomen, acute conditions, 70.27, 70.291, 70.46, 70.723, 70.81 • Abdomen, CT, 70.12111, 70.12112 • Abdomen, radiography, 70.11 • Emergency radiology
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. van Randen, S. Bipat, A. H. Zwinderman, D. T. Ubbink, J. Stoker, and M. A. Boermeester Acute Appendicitis: Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of CT and Graded Compression US Related to Prevalence of Disease Radiology, August 5, 2008; (2008) 2483071652. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Lazarus, W. W. Mayo-Smith, M. B. Mainiero, and P. K. Spencer CT in the Evaluation of Nontraumatic Abdominal Pain in Pregnant Women Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 784 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Saltzman, R. A. Williams, D. V. Gelfand, and S. E. Wilson The Surgeon and AIDS: Twenty Years Later Arch Surg, October 1, 2005; 140(10): 961 - 967. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. B. MacKersie, M. J. Lane, R. T. Gerhardt, H. A. Claypool, S. Keenan, D. S. Katz, and J. E. Tucker Nontraumatic Acute Abdominal Pain: Unenhanced Helical CT Compared with Three-View Acute Abdominal Series Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 114 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. K. Paulson, T. A. Jaffe, J. Thomas, J. P. Harris, and R. C. Nelson MDCT of Patients with Acute Abdominal Pain: A New Perspective Using Coronal Reformations from Submillimeter Isotropic Voxels Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2004; 183(4): 899 - 906. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Berlin CT Versus Radiography for Initial Evaluation of Cervical Spine Trauma: What Is the Standard of Care? Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2003; 180(4): 911 - 915. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
