Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • Medical Dialogues
    • Education Dialogues
    • Business Dialogues
    • Medical Jobs
    • Medical Matrimony
    • MD Brand Connect
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • Editorial
    • News
        • Anesthesiology
        • Cancer
        • Cardiac Sciences
        • Critical Care
        • Dentistry
        • Dermatology
        • Diabetes and Endo
        • Diagnostics
        • ENT
        • Featured Research
        • Gastroenterology
        • Geriatrics
        • Medicine
        • Nephrology
        • Neurosciences
        • Nursing
        • Obs and Gynae
        • Ophthalmology
        • Orthopaedics
        • Paediatrics
        • Parmedics
        • Pharmacy
        • Psychiatry
        • Pulmonology
        • Radiology
        • Surgery
        • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
        • Anesthesiology Guidelines
        • Cancer Guidelines
        • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
        • Critical Care Guidelines
        • Dentistry Guidelines
        • Dermatology Guidelines
        • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
        • Diagnostics Guidelines
        • ENT Guidelines
        • Featured Practice Guidelines
        • Gastroenterology Guidelines
        • Geriatrics Guidelines
        • Medicine Guidelines
        • Nephrology Guidelines
        • Neurosciences Guidelines
        • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
        • Ophthalmology Guidelines
        • Orthopaedics Guidelines
        • Paediatrics Guidelines
        • Psychiatry Guidelines
        • Pulmonology Guidelines
        • Radiology Guidelines
        • Surgery Guidelines
        • Urology Guidelines
    LoginRegister
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    LoginRegister
    • Home
    • Editorial
    • News
      • Anesthesiology
      • Cancer
      • Cardiac Sciences
      • Critical Care
      • Dentistry
      • Dermatology
      • Diabetes and Endo
      • Diagnostics
      • ENT
      • Featured Research
      • Gastroenterology
      • Geriatrics
      • Medicine
      • Nephrology
      • Neurosciences
      • Nursing
      • Obs and Gynae
      • Ophthalmology
      • Orthopaedics
      • Paediatrics
      • Parmedics
      • Pharmacy
      • Psychiatry
      • Pulmonology
      • Radiology
      • Surgery
      • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
      • Anesthesiology Guidelines
      • Cancer Guidelines
      • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
      • Critical Care Guidelines
      • Dentistry Guidelines
      • Dermatology Guidelines
      • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
      • Diagnostics Guidelines
      • ENT Guidelines
      • Featured Practice Guidelines
      • Gastroenterology Guidelines
      • Geriatrics Guidelines
      • Medicine Guidelines
      • Nephrology Guidelines
      • Neurosciences Guidelines
      • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
      • Ophthalmology Guidelines
      • Orthopaedics Guidelines
      • Paediatrics Guidelines
      • Psychiatry Guidelines
      • Pulmonology Guidelines
      • Radiology Guidelines
      • Surgery Guidelines
      • Urology Guidelines
    • Home
    • Latest News
    • CT scan better than...

    CT scan better than Ultrasound for assessing abdominal trauma in children

    Written by Medha Baranwal Baranwal Published On 2019-03-10T19:30:10+05:30  |  Updated On 10 March 2019 7:30 PM IST
    CT scan better than Ultrasound for assessing abdominal trauma in children

    CT scan is more useful in assessing abdominal trauma in children as compared to an ultrasound scan.


    Point‐of‐care sonography (POCS) can be a useful tool for screening of suspected body trauma helping in pinpointing organ damage or internal bleeding in the abdomen or chest, but a negative scan does not rule out injuries, especially with regard to abdominal trauma in children, finds a recent Cochrane Review. The negative scan thus must be verified by a reference test such as computed tomography.


    Point‐of‐care sonography (POCS) has emerged as the screening modality of choice for suspected body trauma in many emergency departments worldwide to assess for internal damage. Ultrasound is free from radiation, non-invasive and can be used at the bedside, making it convenient if CT is not available.


    Dirk Stengel, Centre for Clinical Research, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Unfallkrankenhaus, Berlin, Germany, and colleagues conducted this Cochrane systematic review review of 34 studies with 8,635 people to determine the diagnostic accuracy of POCS for detecting and excluding free fluid, organ injuries, vascular lesions, and other injuries (e.g. pneumothorax) compared to computed tomography in patients with blunt trauma.


    Also Read: Ultrasound – A better tool than X-ray for diagnosing long-bone fracture : Study

    Key Findings:




    • Estimates for all 34 studies included in the review were 74% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 0.81). This means 26% of injuries would be missed. Specificity was good at 96% (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) meaning that 4% of those without an injury would be incorrectly diagnosed as having an injury. However, this masked large differences in sensitivity result between adults and children, and for different body area.

    • For children only, sensitivity was lower at 63% (95% CI 0.46 to 0.77, 10 studies with 1,384 participants) as was specificity at 91% (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). For adults or mixed populations, excluding the children only studies, sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84, based on 24 studies with 7,251 participants) and specificity was 0.97% (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99).

    • Ultrasound was more accurate for a chest injury, with a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00).

    • Ultrasound was less accurate for an abdominal injury, with a sensitivity of 68% (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) and specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97).

    • In a virtual population of 1,000 based on the 34 studies included, using the observed average prevalence of injury of 28%, ultrasound would miss 73 patients with injuries and falsely suggest injury in another 29. In a population of 1,000 children based on the 10 child studies and using the observed average injury prevalence of 31%, ultrasound would miss 118 children with injuries and falsely suggest injury in another 62.


    Also Read: Major trauma: assessment and initial management Guidelines

    "The findings come as a reminder that abdominal injury or bleeding cannot be ruled out by ultrasound findings alone, especially in children. While the NICE guideline suggests ultrasound may be used first-line in children, negative findings should not be taken as definitive and further investigations may be required.


    For further reference follow the link: DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD012669.pub2

    blunt traumabody traumaCochrane ReviewComputed tomographyCT ScanDirk Stengelinternal bleedingorgan damagePOCSPoint of care sonographyscreeningsonographytraumaUltrasound
    Source : With inputs from Cochrane

    Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

    Medha Baranwal Baranwal
    Medha Baranwal Baranwal
      Show Full Article
      Next Story
      Similar Posts
      NO DATA FOUND

      • Email: info@medicaldialogues.in
      • Phone: 011 - 4372 0751

      Website Last Updated On : 12 Oct 2022 7:06 AM GMT
      Company
      • About Us
      • Contact Us
      • Our Team
      • Reach our Editor
      • Feedback
      • Submit Article
      Ads & Legal
      • Advertise
      • Advertise Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Privacy Policy
      • Editorial Policy
      • Comments Policy
      • Disclamier
      Medical Dialogues is health news portal designed to update medical and healthcare professionals but does not limit/block other interested parties from accessing our general health content. The health content on Medical Dialogues and its subdomains is created and/or edited by our expert team, that includes doctors, healthcare researchers and scientific writers, who review all medical information to keep them in line with the latest evidence-based medical information and accepted health guidelines by established medical organisations of the world.

      Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription.Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. You can check out disclaimers here. © 2025 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

      © 2025 - Medical Dialogues. All Rights Reserved.
      Powered By: Hocalwire
      X
      We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok