Skip to main content

Table 4 Accuracy and outcomes of EPs’ CT interpretations in the second period versus the first period

From: Establishment and implementation of an effective rule for the interpretation of computed tomography scans by emergency physicians in blunt trauma

Region

Number

Correct interpretation

Minor misinterpretation

Gravity level

P value

Major misinterpretation

Gravity level

P value

Real-time support

Head

171

169 (98.8%)

2 (1.2%)

1

2

0.07

0

1

0

(−)

17

2

0

  

2

0

3

0

  

3

0

Face

49

47 (95.9%)

2 (4.1%)

1

2

0.03*

0

1

0

(−)

4

2

0

2

0

3

0

3

0

Neck

155

154 (99.3%)

1 (0.6%)

1

1

0.05

0

1

0

(−)

14

2

0

 

2

0

3

0

 

3

0

Chest

151

146 (96.7%)

3 (2.0%)

1

3

0.38

2(1.3%)

1

2

0.02*

23

2

0

2

0

3

0

3

0

Abdomen

147

145 (98.7%)

2 (1.3%)

1

2

0.47

0

1

0

(−)

23

2

0

2

0

3

0

3

0

Pelvis

147

147 (100%)

0

1

0

(−)

0

1

0

(−)

23

2

0

2

0

3

0

3

0

Total

820

808 (98.5%)

10 (1.2%)

1

8

0.02*

2 (0.2%)

1

2

<0.01*

104 (12.7%)

2

0

2

0

 

3

0

 

3

0

 
  1. Fisher’s exact test was performed to compare the number of misinterpretations between the first and second periods.
  2. *Indicates a significant difference, with p < 0.05. Abbreviation: EPs emergency physicians.
  3. In the second period, minor misinterpretations occurred in 10 out of 820 cases (1.2%), and major misinterpretations occurred in 2 out of 820 cases (0.2%). The new rule significantly decreased both minor and major misinterpretations (p < 0.05).