↓ Skip to main content

Radiologic diagnostic procedures in severely injured patients - is only whole-body multislice computed tomography the answer?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Radiologic diagnostic procedures in severely injured patients - is only whole-body multislice computed tomography the answer?
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12245-015-0053-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Topp, Rolf Lefering, Caroline L Lopez, Steffen Ruchholtz, Wolfgang Ertel, Christian A Kühne

Abstract

Whole-body multislice computed tomography (WB-MSCT) has become an important diagnostic tool in the early treatment phase of severely injured patients. The optimal moment of WB-MSCT's use during this treatment phase remains unclear. Many trauma centers use WB-MSCT in addition to conventional radiographs, while some trauma centers use WB-MSCT as the only radiological tool. The aim of this study was to determine the differences between these two protocols and to answer the question of whether conventional radiographs can still be used in the safe treatment of polytrauma patients. Patients from the TraumaRegister DGU® with an injury severity score (ISS) of ≥16 were included. Group I received conventional radiographs and focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) prior to a WB-MSCT, and group II received an initial WB-MSCT and FAST. Both groups were compared concerning treatment time and outcome. A total of 3,995 patients in group I were compared to 4,025 patients in group II. There were no differences in ISS (29.97 vs. 29.94), gender (male: 73.5% vs. 72.8%), age (45.47 vs. 45.12 years), or calculated mortality (21.41% vs. 21.44%). Time needed in the resuscitation room was slightly longer in group I (72 vs. 64 min); the durations until admittance to the ICU and arrival to the OR were not significantly different between the groups. There was no difference in mortality (18.2% vs. 18.4%) or the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) (0.85 vs. 0.86). WB-MSCT plays an inherent role in the treatment of multiple-injured patients. However, the use of WB-MSCT as the only diagnostic method in the resuscitation room is not needed. Conventional radiographs and FAST followed by WB-MSCT can be performed in the early resuscitation phase without impairing patient outcomes. This approach enables the emergency room team to perform life-saving procedures - chest-tube insertion, laparotomy, cardiopulmonary resuscitation -immediately and simultaneous. Nevertheless, randomized multi-center trials are needed to determine the comparability and effectiveness of these algorithms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 74%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2015.
All research outputs
#6,891,503
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#236
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,479
of 255,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.