Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.2147/oaem.s9379 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.2147/oaem.s9379 C4806823!4806823 !27147834     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=27147834 &cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Open+Access+Emerg+Med 2010 ; 2 (?): 25-7 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27147834 |t=2010. Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department |pdf=|usr=}}{{27147834 }} gab.com Text Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department JO: Open Access Emerg Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27147834 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focused scans will reveal pathology more often than screening scans. Treatment plans and patient outcomes were also compared between the two populations. METHODS: This is a prospective study in which 100 patients who presented to an academic medical center with abdominal pain and underwent an abdominal CT were enrolled in the study. A chart review was later completed to gather ultimate outcome data for each of the enrolled subjects. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients having a focused CT, pathology was identified on 63.9% of the scans, which did not differ significantly from the 65.4% of scans that revealed pathology in the screening group. In the focused group, anticipated admissions were reduced, but the reduction was not significant. The screening group did show a significant difference, with eight fewer patients being admitted than initially planned. The total number of patients deemed to require admission was significantly reduced by 15% following all CT scans. CONCLUSION: While there was no difference between the focused and screening groups in the rate of identifying pathology, there was a significant decline in number of patients requiring admission to the hospital in the "screening" CT group (when comparing emergency physicians' pre- and post-CT treatment plans). Twit Text FOAVip Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department ????Open Access Emerg Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27147834 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27147834 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27147834 }}</ref> Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department #MMPMID27147834 Thurston K ; Magge S ; Fuller R ; Voytovich A ; Lee J ; Kozol R Open Access Emerg Med 2010[]; 2 (?): 25-7 PMID27147834 show ga OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department. We compared focused scans (having a single diagnosis in mind) and screening scans (having no diagnosis or more than one diagnosis in mind) with the hypothesis that focused scans will reveal pathology more often than screening scans. Treatment plans and patient outcomes were also compared between the two populations. METHODS: This is a prospective study in which 100 patients who presented to an academic medical center with abdominal pain and underwent an abdominal CT were enrolled in the study. A chart review was later completed to gather ultimate outcome data for each of the enrolled subjects. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients having a focused CT, pathology was identified on 63.9% of the scans, which did not differ significantly from the 65.4% of scans that revealed pathology in the screening group. In the focused group, anticipated admissions were reduced, but the reduction was not significant. The screening group did show a significant difference, with eight fewer patients being admitted than initially planned. The total number of patients deemed to require admission was significantly reduced by 15% following all CT scans. CONCLUSION: While there was no difference between the focused and screening groups in the rate of identifying pathology, there was a significant decline in number of patients requiring admission to the hospital in the "screening" CT group (when comparing emergency physicians' pre- and post-CT treatment plans). ?Focused versus screening CT scans for evaluation of nontraumatic abdom(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing