We have located links that may give you full text access.
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
The ability of emergency physicians to diagnose and score acute pancreatitis on computed tomography.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine the ability of emergency physicians' (EP) interpreting contrast-enhanced computed tomographies (CECTs) performed in patients diagnosed or suspected acute pancreatitis (AP), using the modified computed tomography severity index (MCTSI) scoring system.
METHODS: This study was conducted in Training and Research Hospital's Emergency Department. From January 1, 2013 to April 30, 2016, patients whom performed CECT within 24 h of admission with diagnosis or suspicion of AP were reviewed retrospectively. One hundred eighteen patients were included in the study. Three-third-year EPs received education about CECT interpretation and MCTSI criteria. Each EP interpreted CECTs in a blinded manner. The EPs' performance of determining the CECTs with or without AP and scoring the CECTs with CTSI scoring system was investigated.
RESULTS: The agreement (weighted kappa) between the EPs and the radiologists for determining CECTs positive for AP was 0.932 (p < 0.001), 0.864 (p < 0.001) and 0.949 (p < 0.001) for EP1, EP2 and EP3, respectively. The agreement for MCTSI scores was 0.649 (p < 0.001), 0.588 (p < 0.001) and 0.734 (p < 0.001). These values showed a significant relationship between the EPs and radiologists.
CONCLUSIONS: EPs can diagnose the AP on CECTs and score CECTs with MCTSI scoring system correctly.
METHODS: This study was conducted in Training and Research Hospital's Emergency Department. From January 1, 2013 to April 30, 2016, patients whom performed CECT within 24 h of admission with diagnosis or suspicion of AP were reviewed retrospectively. One hundred eighteen patients were included in the study. Three-third-year EPs received education about CECT interpretation and MCTSI criteria. Each EP interpreted CECTs in a blinded manner. The EPs' performance of determining the CECTs with or without AP and scoring the CECTs with CTSI scoring system was investigated.
RESULTS: The agreement (weighted kappa) between the EPs and the radiologists for determining CECTs positive for AP was 0.932 (p < 0.001), 0.864 (p < 0.001) and 0.949 (p < 0.001) for EP1, EP2 and EP3, respectively. The agreement for MCTSI scores was 0.649 (p < 0.001), 0.588 (p < 0.001) and 0.734 (p < 0.001). These values showed a significant relationship between the EPs and radiologists.
CONCLUSIONS: EPs can diagnose the AP on CECTs and score CECTs with MCTSI scoring system correctly.
Full text links
Related Resources
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