MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy
Journal Article

Contrast-enhanced CT scan (CECT) for the detection of hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries in blunt trauma - an updated systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

2024
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background Despite improved awareness of blunt traumatic hollow viscus and mesenteric injuries (THVMI), the accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) varies considerably among studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy aims to explore the diagnostic performance of CECT in detecting THVMI in blunt trauma. Methods The study was conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations searching the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library datasets from 2000 to 8 September 2023 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023473041). Surgical exploration, autopsy, and discharge from the hospital after monitoring were set as reference standard. To explore the diagnostic accuracy of CECT in detecting THVMI hierarchical models were developed. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to detect sources of heterogeneity. Results Twelve studies, for a total of 4537 patients, were deemed eligible. After identification of outliers and sensitivity analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.69–0.93), 0.94 (95% CI: 0.8–0.98), 14.65 (95% CI: 4.22–50.85), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07–0.34), 92.3 (95% CI: 29.75-286.34), respectively. The Area under the HSROC curve was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96). Meta-regression analysis identified the year of publication as a covariate significantly associated with heterogeneity. A high risk of bias was detected in the “patient selection” domains. Conclusion CECT has a fundamental role in identifying THVMI with high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity. Clinical criteria are still of paramount importance, especially in cases of ambiguous initial CECT images.