Muhammed Alshamari1, Eva Norrman2, Mats Geijer3, Kjell Jansson4, Håkan Geijer5. 1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE 701 85, Örebro, Sweden. muhammed.alshamari@regionorebrolan.se. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 3. Department of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 4. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 5. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, SE 701 85, Örebro, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Abdominal radiography is frequently used in acute abdominal non-traumatic pain despite the availability of more advanced diagnostic modalities. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of low-dose CT compared with abdominal radiography, at similar radiation dose levels. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients were imaged with both methods and were reviewed independently by three radiologists. The reference standard was obtained from the diagnosis in medical records. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. A systematic review was performed after a literature search, finding a total of six relevant studies including the present. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity with 95 % CI for CT was 75 % (66-83 %) and 46 % (37-56 %) for radiography. Specificity was 87 % (77-94 %) for both methods. In the systematic review the overall sensitivity for CT varied between 75 and 96 % with specificity from 83 to 95 % while the overall sensitivity for abdominal radiography varied between 30 and 77 % with specificity 75 to 88 %. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current study and available evidence, low-dose CT has higher diagnostic accuracy than abdominal radiography and it should, where logistically possible, replace abdominal radiography in the workup of adult patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain. KEY POINTS: • Low-dose CT has a higher diagnostic accuracy than radiography. • A systematic review shows that CT has better diagnostic accuracy than radiography. • Radiography has no place in the workup of acute non-traumatic abdominal pain.
OBJECTIVES: Abdominal radiography is frequently used in acute abdominal non-traumatic pain despite the availability of more advanced diagnostic modalities. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of low-dose CT compared with abdominal radiography, at similar radiation dose levels. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients were imaged with both methods and were reviewed independently by three radiologists. The reference standard was obtained from the diagnosis in medical records. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. A systematic review was performed after a literature search, finding a total of six relevant studies including the present. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity with 95 % CI for CT was 75 % (66-83 %) and 46 % (37-56 %) for radiography. Specificity was 87 % (77-94 %) for both methods. In the systematic review the overall sensitivity for CT varied between 75 and 96 % with specificity from 83 to 95 % while the overall sensitivity for abdominal radiography varied between 30 and 77 % with specificity 75 to 88 %. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current study and available evidence, low-dose CT has higher diagnostic accuracy than abdominal radiography and it should, where logistically possible, replace abdominal radiography in the workup of adult patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain. KEY POINTS: • Low-dose CT has a higher diagnostic accuracy than radiography. • A systematic review shows that CT has better diagnostic accuracy than radiography. • Radiography has no place in the workup of acute non-traumatic abdominal pain.
Authors: Adrienne van Randen; Wytze Laméris; Jan S K Luitse; Michiel Gorzeman; Erik J Hesselink; Dennis E J G J Dolmans; Jan Peringa; Anna A W van Geloven; Patrick M Bossuyt; Jaap Stoker; Marja A Boermeester Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Andrew B MacKersie; Michael J Lane; Robert T Gerhardt; Harry A Claypool; Sean Keenan; Douglas S Katz; Jonathan E Tucker Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tiina Lehtimäki; Petri Juvonen; Hannu Valtonen; Pekka Miettinen; Hannu Paajanen; Ritva Vanninen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Pierre-Alexandre Poletti; Minerva Becker; Christoph D Becker; Alice Halfon Poletti; Olivier T Rutschmann; Habib Zaidi; Thomas Perneger; Alexandra Platon Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Malte Lennart Warncke; Nis Jesper Wiese; Enver Tahir; Susanne Sehner; Axel Heinemann; Marc Regier; Klaus Püschel; Gerhard Adam; Julius Matthias Weinrich; Azien Laqmani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeremy R Burt; Madison R Kocher; Lauren Snider; Jeffrey Waltz; Jordan Heston Chamberlin; Gilberto J Aquino; Vincent Giovagnoli; Megan Mercer; Nicholas Feranec Journal: Visc Med Date: 2022-05-06