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).