Does this adult patient have a blunt intra-abdominal injury?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

65 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Blunt abdominal trauma often presents a substantial diagnostic challenge. Well-informed clinical examination can identify patients who require further diagnostic evaluation for intra-abdominal injuries after blunt abdominal trauma.Objective: To systematically assess the precision and accuracy of symptoms, signs, laboratory tests, and bedside imaging studies to identify intra-abdominal injuries in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Data Sources: We conducted a structured search of MEDLINE (1950-January 2012) and EMBASE (1980-January 2012) to identify English-language studies examining the identification of intra-abdominal injuries. A separate, structured search was conducted for studies evaluating bedside ultrasonography. Study Selection: We included studies of diagnostic accuracy for intra-abdominal injury that compared at least 1 finding with a reference standard of abdominal computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, laparotomy, autopsy, and/or clinical course for intra-abdominal injury. Twelve studies on clinical findings and 22 studies on bedside ultrasonography met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Data Extraction: Critical appraisal and data extraction were independently performed by 2 authors. Data Synthesis: The prevalence of intra-abdominal injury in adult emergency department patients with blunt abdominal trauma among all evidence level 1 and 2 studies was 13% (95% CI, 10%-17%), with 4.7% (95% CI, 2.5%-8.6%) requiring therapeutic surgery or angiographic embolization of injuries. The presence of a seat belt sign (likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.6-9.9), rebound tenderness (LR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-24), hypotension (LR, 5.2; 95% CI, 3.5-7.5), abdominal distention (LR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.6), or guarding (LR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3-5.9) suggest an intra-abdominal injury. The absence of abdominal tenderness to palpation does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury (summary LR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80). The presence of intraperitoneal fluid or organ injury on bedside ultrasound assessment is more accurate than any history and physical examination findings (adjusted summary LR, 30; 95% CI, 20-46); conversely, a normal ultrasound result decreases the chance of injury detection (adjusted summary LR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.19- 0.34). Test results increasing the likelihood of intra-abdominal injury include a base deficit less than -6 mEq/L (LR, 18; 95% CI, 11-30), elevated liver transaminases (LR range, 2.5-5.2), hematuria (LR range, 3.7-4.1), anemia (LR range, 2.2-3.3), and abnormal chest radiograph (LR range, 2.5-3.8). Symptoms and signs may be most useful in combination, particularly in identification of patients who do not need further diagnostic workup. Conclusions: Bedside ultrasonography has the highest accuracy of all individual findings, but a normal result does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury. Combinations of clinical findings may be most useful to determine which patients do not require further evaluation, but the ideal combination of variables for identifying patients without intra-abdominal injury requires further study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1517-1527
Number of pages11
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume307
Issue number14
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 4 2012

Fingerprint

Abdominal Injuries
Wounds and Injuries
Ultrasonography
Signs and Symptoms
Seat Belts
Peritoneal Lavage
Palpation
Information Storage and Retrieval
Hematuria
Transaminases
MEDLINE
Hypotension
Laparotomy
Physical Examination
Hospital Emergency Service
Anemia
Autopsy
Language
Thorax
History

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Does this adult patient have a blunt intra-abdominal injury? / Nishijima, Daniel; Simel, David L.; Wisner, David H; Holmes Jr, James F.

In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 307, No. 14, 04.04.2012, p. 1517-1527.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8f172cb6c0ce41d395add69395397588,
title = "Does this adult patient have a blunt intra-abdominal injury?",
abstract = "Context: Blunt abdominal trauma often presents a substantial diagnostic challenge. Well-informed clinical examination can identify patients who require further diagnostic evaluation for intra-abdominal injuries after blunt abdominal trauma.Objective: To systematically assess the precision and accuracy of symptoms, signs, laboratory tests, and bedside imaging studies to identify intra-abdominal injuries in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Data Sources: We conducted a structured search of MEDLINE (1950-January 2012) and EMBASE (1980-January 2012) to identify English-language studies examining the identification of intra-abdominal injuries. A separate, structured search was conducted for studies evaluating bedside ultrasonography. Study Selection: We included studies of diagnostic accuracy for intra-abdominal injury that compared at least 1 finding with a reference standard of abdominal computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, laparotomy, autopsy, and/or clinical course for intra-abdominal injury. Twelve studies on clinical findings and 22 studies on bedside ultrasonography met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Data Extraction: Critical appraisal and data extraction were independently performed by 2 authors. Data Synthesis: The prevalence of intra-abdominal injury in adult emergency department patients with blunt abdominal trauma among all evidence level 1 and 2 studies was 13{\%} (95{\%} CI, 10{\%}-17{\%}), with 4.7{\%} (95{\%} CI, 2.5{\%}-8.6{\%}) requiring therapeutic surgery or angiographic embolization of injuries. The presence of a seat belt sign (likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.6-9.9), rebound tenderness (LR, 6.5; 95{\%} CI, 1.8-24), hypotension (LR, 5.2; 95{\%} CI, 3.5-7.5), abdominal distention (LR, 3.8; 95{\%} CI, 1.9-7.6), or guarding (LR, 3.7; 95{\%} CI, 2.3-5.9) suggest an intra-abdominal injury. The absence of abdominal tenderness to palpation does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury (summary LR, 0.61; 95{\%} CI, 0.46-0.80). The presence of intraperitoneal fluid or organ injury on bedside ultrasound assessment is more accurate than any history and physical examination findings (adjusted summary LR, 30; 95{\%} CI, 20-46); conversely, a normal ultrasound result decreases the chance of injury detection (adjusted summary LR, 0.26; 95{\%} CI, 0.19- 0.34). Test results increasing the likelihood of intra-abdominal injury include a base deficit less than -6 mEq/L (LR, 18; 95{\%} CI, 11-30), elevated liver transaminases (LR range, 2.5-5.2), hematuria (LR range, 3.7-4.1), anemia (LR range, 2.2-3.3), and abnormal chest radiograph (LR range, 2.5-3.8). Symptoms and signs may be most useful in combination, particularly in identification of patients who do not need further diagnostic workup. Conclusions: Bedside ultrasonography has the highest accuracy of all individual findings, but a normal result does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury. Combinations of clinical findings may be most useful to determine which patients do not require further evaluation, but the ideal combination of variables for identifying patients without intra-abdominal injury requires further study.",
author = "Daniel Nishijima and Simel, {David L.} and Wisner, {David H} and {Holmes Jr}, {James F}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1001/jama.2012.422",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "307",
pages = "1517--1527",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "14",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does this adult patient have a blunt intra-abdominal injury?

AU - Nishijima, Daniel

AU - Simel, David L.

AU - Wisner, David H

AU - Holmes Jr, James F

PY - 2012/4/4

Y1 - 2012/4/4

N2 - Context: Blunt abdominal trauma often presents a substantial diagnostic challenge. Well-informed clinical examination can identify patients who require further diagnostic evaluation for intra-abdominal injuries after blunt abdominal trauma.Objective: To systematically assess the precision and accuracy of symptoms, signs, laboratory tests, and bedside imaging studies to identify intra-abdominal injuries in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Data Sources: We conducted a structured search of MEDLINE (1950-January 2012) and EMBASE (1980-January 2012) to identify English-language studies examining the identification of intra-abdominal injuries. A separate, structured search was conducted for studies evaluating bedside ultrasonography. Study Selection: We included studies of diagnostic accuracy for intra-abdominal injury that compared at least 1 finding with a reference standard of abdominal computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, laparotomy, autopsy, and/or clinical course for intra-abdominal injury. Twelve studies on clinical findings and 22 studies on bedside ultrasonography met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Data Extraction: Critical appraisal and data extraction were independently performed by 2 authors. Data Synthesis: The prevalence of intra-abdominal injury in adult emergency department patients with blunt abdominal trauma among all evidence level 1 and 2 studies was 13% (95% CI, 10%-17%), with 4.7% (95% CI, 2.5%-8.6%) requiring therapeutic surgery or angiographic embolization of injuries. The presence of a seat belt sign (likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.6-9.9), rebound tenderness (LR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-24), hypotension (LR, 5.2; 95% CI, 3.5-7.5), abdominal distention (LR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.6), or guarding (LR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3-5.9) suggest an intra-abdominal injury. The absence of abdominal tenderness to palpation does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury (summary LR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80). The presence of intraperitoneal fluid or organ injury on bedside ultrasound assessment is more accurate than any history and physical examination findings (adjusted summary LR, 30; 95% CI, 20-46); conversely, a normal ultrasound result decreases the chance of injury detection (adjusted summary LR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.19- 0.34). Test results increasing the likelihood of intra-abdominal injury include a base deficit less than -6 mEq/L (LR, 18; 95% CI, 11-30), elevated liver transaminases (LR range, 2.5-5.2), hematuria (LR range, 3.7-4.1), anemia (LR range, 2.2-3.3), and abnormal chest radiograph (LR range, 2.5-3.8). Symptoms and signs may be most useful in combination, particularly in identification of patients who do not need further diagnostic workup. Conclusions: Bedside ultrasonography has the highest accuracy of all individual findings, but a normal result does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury. Combinations of clinical findings may be most useful to determine which patients do not require further evaluation, but the ideal combination of variables for identifying patients without intra-abdominal injury requires further study.

AB - Context: Blunt abdominal trauma often presents a substantial diagnostic challenge. Well-informed clinical examination can identify patients who require further diagnostic evaluation for intra-abdominal injuries after blunt abdominal trauma.Objective: To systematically assess the precision and accuracy of symptoms, signs, laboratory tests, and bedside imaging studies to identify intra-abdominal injuries in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Data Sources: We conducted a structured search of MEDLINE (1950-January 2012) and EMBASE (1980-January 2012) to identify English-language studies examining the identification of intra-abdominal injuries. A separate, structured search was conducted for studies evaluating bedside ultrasonography. Study Selection: We included studies of diagnostic accuracy for intra-abdominal injury that compared at least 1 finding with a reference standard of abdominal computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, laparotomy, autopsy, and/or clinical course for intra-abdominal injury. Twelve studies on clinical findings and 22 studies on bedside ultrasonography met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Data Extraction: Critical appraisal and data extraction were independently performed by 2 authors. Data Synthesis: The prevalence of intra-abdominal injury in adult emergency department patients with blunt abdominal trauma among all evidence level 1 and 2 studies was 13% (95% CI, 10%-17%), with 4.7% (95% CI, 2.5%-8.6%) requiring therapeutic surgery or angiographic embolization of injuries. The presence of a seat belt sign (likelihood ratio [LR] range, 5.6-9.9), rebound tenderness (LR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-24), hypotension (LR, 5.2; 95% CI, 3.5-7.5), abdominal distention (LR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.6), or guarding (LR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3-5.9) suggest an intra-abdominal injury. The absence of abdominal tenderness to palpation does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury (summary LR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80). The presence of intraperitoneal fluid or organ injury on bedside ultrasound assessment is more accurate than any history and physical examination findings (adjusted summary LR, 30; 95% CI, 20-46); conversely, a normal ultrasound result decreases the chance of injury detection (adjusted summary LR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.19- 0.34). Test results increasing the likelihood of intra-abdominal injury include a base deficit less than -6 mEq/L (LR, 18; 95% CI, 11-30), elevated liver transaminases (LR range, 2.5-5.2), hematuria (LR range, 3.7-4.1), anemia (LR range, 2.2-3.3), and abnormal chest radiograph (LR range, 2.5-3.8). Symptoms and signs may be most useful in combination, particularly in identification of patients who do not need further diagnostic workup. Conclusions: Bedside ultrasonography has the highest accuracy of all individual findings, but a normal result does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury. Combinations of clinical findings may be most useful to determine which patients do not require further evaluation, but the ideal combination of variables for identifying patients without intra-abdominal injury requires further study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859549874&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859549874&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.2012.422

DO - 10.1001/jama.2012.422

M3 - Article

C2 - 22496266

AN - SCOPUS:84859549874

VL - 307

SP - 1517

EP - 1527

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 14

ER -