MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Derivation of a clinical guideline for the assessment of nonspecific abdominal pain: the Guideline for Abdominal Pain in the ED Setting (GAPEDS) Phase 1 Study
Derivation of a clinical guideline for the assessment of nonspecific abdominal pain: the Guideline for Abdominal Pain in the ED Setting (GAPEDS) Phase 1 Study
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?
Derivation of a clinical guideline for the assessment of nonspecific abdominal pain: the Guideline for Abdominal Pain in the ED Setting (GAPEDS) Phase 1 Study
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?
Derivation of a clinical guideline for the assessment of nonspecific abdominal pain: the Guideline for Abdominal Pain in the ED Setting (GAPEDS) Phase 1 Study
Derivation of a clinical guideline for the assessment of nonspecific abdominal pain: the Guideline for Abdominal Pain in the ED Setting (GAPEDS) Phase 1 Study

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.
Derivation of a clinical guideline for the assessment of nonspecific abdominal pain: the Guideline for Abdominal Pain in the ED Setting (GAPEDS) Phase 1 Study
Derivation of a clinical guideline for the assessment of nonspecific abdominal pain: the Guideline for Abdominal Pain in the ED Setting (GAPEDS) Phase 1 Study
Journal Article

Derivation of a clinical guideline for the assessment of nonspecific abdominal pain: the Guideline for Abdominal Pain in the ED Setting (GAPEDS) Phase 1 Study

2005
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
The purpose of this study was to identify a clinical guideline for the evaluation of nonspecific abdominal pain (NSAP) using history, physical examination, laboratory analysis, acute abdominal series (AAS) radiographs, and nonenhanced helical computed tomography (NHCT) clinical predictor variables (CPVs). The setting of this study was at an urban emergency department (ED) with 70 000 yearly visits. This is an institutional review board–approved, prospective, observational study. The primary outcome variable was urgent intervention (UI), defined as a diagnosis requiring surgical or medical treatment to prevent death or major morbidity. Subjects underwent prompted history, physical, laboratory studies, AAS, and NHCT and were followed up to 6 months for ultimate diagnosis and outcome. CPVs were subjected to classification and regression tree analysis. One hundred sixty-five subjects were analyzed. Thirteen percent of subjects required UI within 24 hours of presentation; an additional 34% underwent elective interventions that mitigated morbidity or mortality. Four guideline models were generated. Model 1 consisted of history and physical, with a sensitivity of 25%, a specificity of 92%, a positive likelihood ratio of 3.17, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.81. Model 2 consisted of model 1 with laboratory, with a sensitivity of 39%, a specificity of 88%, a positive likelihood ratio of 3.25, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.69. Model 3 consisted of model 2 with AAS, with a sensitivity of 56%, a specificity of 81%, a positive likelihood ratio of 2.94, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.54. Model 4 comprised all inputs, including NHCT, with a sensitivity of 92%, a specificity of 90%, a positive likelihood ratio of 9.2, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.089. NHCT was the single most accurate CPV for UI. No clinical guideline was identified exclusive of NHCT that possessed adequate sensitivity for exclusion of UI. NHCT is a rational choice for decision support in the evaluation of NSAP and is likely the single most useful diagnostic adjunct available to augment the clinical evaluation.