FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1878632380> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1878632380 endingPage "1045" @default.
• W1878632380 startingPage "1039" @default.
• W1878632380 abstract "To determine the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) esophagography in diagnosing penetrating esophageal and hypopharyngeal injuries in trauma patients and to see if it can be used as the only imaging method in diagnosing these injuries. The confidence of radiologists using only CT esophagography was also measured.A prospective cross-sectional analytic study was done on haemodinamically stable patients requiring multidetector CT after external penetrating neck or chest trauma. Each patient was given oral contrast consisting of 50 ml 50% iohexol solution, within 5 min of commencement of the CT examination and in the supine position. An attempt was made to confirm all CT esophagography findings with at least one secondary method. Images were evaluated separately by two general departmental radiologists who were blinded to the results of the confirmation method.Between December 2012 and November 2014, 102 patients were included, of which 93 (91.2%) were male. Stab wounds were responsible for 85.3% (n=87) of penetrating wounds. Ninety-four patients (92.2%) had CT angiography (CTA) in conjunction with CT esophagography. There were 20 confirmed upper digestive tract injuries; 11 (55.0%) in the hypopharynx and 9 (45.0%) in the esophagus. With the exception of one case, all upper digestive tract injuries were diagnosed using only CT esophagography. No upper digestive tract injuries were correctly identified in 70 and 75 out of 82 true negative cases respectively, suggesting a sensitivity of 95.0% for both radiologists and specificity of 85.4% and 91.5% for CT esophagography. A number of false positive diagnoses were reported when CT esophagography was done in conjunction with CTA, resulting in a positive predictive value of 61.3% and 79.1% for this technique. Reviewers were positive to very confident about the CT esophagography findings in 90.0% and 100% of patients with injuries and 79.0% and 87.0%, respectively, in the no injury group.CT esophagography is reliable in diagnosing penetrating upper digestive tract injuries. In conjunction with CTA, false positive findings may occur. Radiologists were generally positive to very confident about their CT esophagography findings, not needing further imaging in more than 60% of cases." @default.
• W1878632380 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1878632380 creator A5041534524 @default.
• W1878632380 creator A5075002750 @default.
• W1878632380 date "2015-11-01" @default.
• W1878632380 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W1878632380 title "Can computed tomography esophagography reliably diagnose traumatic penetrating upper digestive tract injuries?" @default.
• W1878632380 cites W1969503142 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W1969736664 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W1986017922 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W1986731273 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2024247084 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2027381859 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2033567225 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2037311466 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2045122013 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2054656845 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2071862859 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2074507333 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2077080440 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2090135231 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2112620811 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2130248807 @default.
• W1878632380 cites W2157400314 @default.
• W1878632380 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.07.021" @default.
• W1878632380 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26264956" @default.
• W1878632380 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W1878632380 type Work @default.
• W1878632380 sameAs 1878632380 @default.
• W1878632380 citedByCount "16" @default.
• W1878632380 countsByYear W18786323802016 @default.
• W1878632380 countsByYear W18786323802017 @default.
• W1878632380 countsByYear W18786323802018 @default.
• W1878632380 countsByYear W18786323802019 @default.
• W1878632380 countsByYear W18786323802020 @default.
• W1878632380 countsByYear W18786323802021 @default.
• W1878632380 countsByYear W18786323802023 @default.
• W1878632380 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1878632380 hasAuthorship W1878632380A5041534524 @default.
• W1878632380 hasAuthorship W1878632380A5075002750 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConcept C125567185 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConcept C2777819096 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConcept C2778451229 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConceptScore W1878632380C125567185 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConceptScore W1878632380C126838900 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConceptScore W1878632380C141071460 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConceptScore W1878632380C2777819096 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConceptScore W1878632380C2778451229 @default.
• W1878632380 hasConceptScore W1878632380C71924100 @default.
• W1878632380 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W1878632380 hasLocation W18786323801 @default.
• W1878632380 hasLocation W18786323802 @default.
• W1878632380 hasOpenAccess W1878632380 @default.
• W1878632380 hasPrimaryLocation W18786323801 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W1488196722 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W1967244891 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W1969552821 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W2003011820 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W2014435840 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W2106024703 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W2139401824 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W2415717579 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W2513146652 @default.
• W1878632380 hasRelatedWork W3021982743 @default.
• W1878632380 hasVolume "39" @default.
• W1878632380 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1878632380 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1878632380 magId "1878632380" @default.
• W1878632380 workType "article" @default.