RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: diagnostic errors during the interpretation of an imaging test by the physician can lead to increased mortality and length of hospital stay for patients. The rate of divergence in the report given by a radiologist and an Emergency Physicians (EP) can reach over 20%. The objective of this study was to compare the unofficial tomographic reports issued by EP with the official reports issued by radiologists. METHODS: a cross-sectional study, in which interpretations of the exams (documented in the medical records by the EP) of all patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen or pelvis performed in the emergency room, at an interval of 8 months, were evaluated. These data were compared with the official reports of the radiologist (gold standard). RESULTS: 508 patients were included. The divergence between EP and the radiologist occurred in 27% of the cases. The most common type of divergence was the one not described by the EP, but described by the radiologist. The chance of having divergence in a case of multiple trauma is 4.93 times greater in relation to the case of only blunt trauma in one segment. A statistically relevant difference was also found in the length of stay of patients who had different interpretations of the CT scans. CONCLUSION: the study found a relatively high divergence rate between the EP report and the official radiologist report. However, less than 4% of these were considered to be clinically relevant, indicating the ability of the EP to interpret it satisfactorily.
Assuntos
Radiologistas , Centros de Traumatologia , Humanos , Estudos Transversais , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios XRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: to perform an external validation of two clinical decision instruments (DIs) - Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major - in a cohort of patients with blunt chest trauma undergoing chest CT scanning at a trauma referral center, and determine if these DIs are safe options for selective ordering of chest CT scans in patients with blunt chest trauma admitted to emergency units. METHODS: cross-sectional study of patients with blunt chest trauma undergoing chest CT scanning over a period of 11 months. Chest CT reports were cross-checked with the patients' electronic medical record data. The sensitivity and specificity of both instruments were calculated. RESULTS: the study included 764 patients. The Chest CT-All DI showed 100% sensitivity for all injuries and specificity values of 33.6% for injuries of major clinical significance and 40.4% for any lesion. The Chest CT-Major DI had sensitivity of 100% for injuries of major clinical significance, which decreased to 98.6% for any lesions, and specificity values of 37.4% for injuries of major clinical significance and 44.6% for all lesions. CONCLUSION: both clinical DIs validated in this study showed adequate sensitivity to detect chest injuries on CT and can be safely used to forego chest CT evaluation in patients without any of the criteria that define each DI. Had the Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major DIs been applied in this cohort, the number of CT scans performed would have decreased by 23.1% and 24.6%, respectively, resulting in cost reduction and avoiding unnecessary radiation exposure.
Assuntos
Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Radiografia Torácica/instrumentação , Traumatismos Torácicos/diagnóstico por imagem , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/métodos , Ferimentos não Penetrantes/diagnóstico por imagem , Adulto , Brasil , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Centros de TraumatologiaRESUMO
ABSTRACT Objective: diagnostic errors during the interpretation of an imaging test by the physician can lead to increased mortality and length of hospital stay for patients. The rate of divergence in the report given by a radiologist and an Emergency Physicians (EP) can reach over 20%. The objective of this study was to compare the unofficial tomographic reports issued by EP with the official reports issued by radiologists. Methods: a cross-sectional study, in which interpretations of the exams (documented in the medical records by the EP) of all patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen or pelvis performed in the emergency room, at an interval of 8 months, were evaluated. These data were compared with the official reports of the radiologist (gold standard). Results: 508 patients were included. The divergence between EP and the radiologist occurred in 27% of the cases. The most common type of divergence was the one not described by the EP, but described by the radiologist. The chance of having divergence in a case of multiple trauma is 4.93 times greater in relation to the case of only blunt trauma in one segment. A statistically relevant difference was also found in the length of stay of patients who had different interpretations of the CT scans. Conclusion: the study found a relatively high divergence rate between the EP report and the official radiologist report. However, less than 4% of these were considered to be clinically relevant, indicating the ability of the EP to interpret it satisfactorily.
RESUMO Objetivo: os erros diagnósticos durante a interpretação de um exame de imagem pelo médico podem acarretar aumento da mortalidade e do tempo de internação dos pacientes. A taxa de divergência entre o laudo dado por um médico radiologista e a avaliação preliminar de um Médico Emergencista (ME) pode chegar a mais de 20%. O objetivo deste trabalho foi comparar as avaliações dos exames de imagem realizadas pelo ME com os laudos oficiais emitidos pelos radiologistas. Métodos: estudo seccional e transversal, no qual foram avaliadas interpretações dos exames (documentadas no prontuário pelos ME) de todos os pacientes submetidos à tomografia computadorizada (TC) de tórax, abdome ou pelve realizada na emergência, em um intervalo de 8 meses. Esses dados foram comparados com os laudos oficiais do médico radiologista (padrão ouro). Resultados: foram incluídos 508 pacientes no estudo. A divergência entre ME e radiologista ocorreu em 27% dos casos. O tipo de divergência mais incidente foi a não descrita pelo ME, mas descrita pelo radiologista. A chance de haver divergência em um caso de politrauma é 4,93 vezes maior em relação ao caso de somente trauma contuso em um segmento. Foi encontrada também uma diferença estatisticamente relevante no tempo de internamento dos pacientes que tiveram interpretações divergentes das tomografias. Conclusão: o estudo encontrou uma taxa de divergência relativamente alta entre o laudo do ME e o laudo oficial do radiologista. Contudo, menos de 4% dessas foram consideradas como clinicamente relevantes, indicando a capacidade dos ME em interpretar os exames de imagem de forma satisfatória.
RESUMO
ABSTRACT Objective: to perform an external validation of two clinical decision instruments (DIs) - Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major - in a cohort of patients with blunt chest trauma undergoing chest CT scanning at a trauma referral center, and determine if these DIs are safe options for selective ordering of chest CT scans in patients with blunt chest trauma admitted to emergency units. Methods: cross-sectional study of patients with blunt chest trauma undergoing chest CT scanning over a period of 11 months. Chest CT reports were cross-checked with the patients' electronic medical record data. The sensitivity and specificity of both instruments were calculated. Results: the study included 764 patients. The Chest CT-All DI showed 100% sensitivity for all injuries and specificity values of 33.6% for injuries of major clinical significance and 40.4% for any lesion. The Chest CT-Major DI had sensitivity of 100% for injuries of major clinical significance, which decreased to 98.6% for any lesions, and specificity values of 37.4% for injuries of major clinical significance and 44.6% for all lesions. Conclusion: both clinical DIs validated in this study showed adequate sensitivity to detect chest injuries on CT and can be safely used to forego chest CT evaluation in patients without any of the criteria that define each DI. Had the Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major DIs been applied in this cohort, the number of CT scans performed would have decreased by 23.1% and 24.6%, respectively, resulting in cost reduction and avoiding unnecessary radiation exposure.
RESUMO Objetivo: realizar validação externa de dois instrumentos de decisão clínica (IDCs) - TC de tórax-All e TC de tórax-Major - em uma coorte de pacientes com trauma torácico fechado submetidos a tomografia computadorizada de tórax em centro de referência para trauma, e determinar se esses IDCs são opções seguras para solicitação seletiva de tomografias computadorizadas de tórax em pacientes com trauma torácico fechado admitidos em unidades de emergência. Métodos: estudo retrospectivo transversal de pacientes com trauma torácico fechado submetidos a tomografia computadorizada de tórax, por período de 11 meses. Os laudos da TC de tórax foram cruzados com os dados do prontuário eletrônico dos pacientes. A sensibilidade e especificidade de ambos os instrumentos foram calculadas. Resultados: o estudo incluiu 764 pacientes. O IDC TC de tórax-All apresentou sensibilidade de 100% para todas as lesões e especificidades de 33,6% para lesões de maior significado clínico e 40,4% para qualquer lesão. O IDC TC de tórax Major teve sensibilidade de 100% para lesões de maior significado clínico, que diminuiu para 98,6% para quaisquer lesões, e especificidades de 37,4% para lesões de maior significado clínico e 44,6% para todas as lesões. Conclusão: ambos os instrumentos de decisão clínica validados neste estudo mostraram sensibilidade adequada para detectar lesões torácicas na TC e podem ser usados com segurança para dispensar a avaliação da TC de tórax em pacientes sem nenhum dos critérios que definem o IDC. Se os IDCs TC de tórax-All e TC de tórax Major de tórax tivessem sido aplicados nesta coorte, o número de tomografias realizadas teria diminuído em 23,1% e 24,6%, respectivamente, resultando em redução de custos e evitando exposição desnecessária à radiação.