The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of the Accuracy of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: Head-to-head comparison of ultrasound and CT accuracy in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with abdominal pain for >2 h and <5 days referred for imaging underwent both US and CT by different radiologists/radiological residents. An expert panel assigned a final diagnosis. Ultrasound and CT sensitivity and predictive values were calculated for frequent final diagnoses. Effect of patient characteristics and observer experience on ultrasound sensitivity was studied. RESULTS: Frequent final diagnoses in the 1,021 patients (mean age 47; 55% female) were appendicitis (284; 28%), diverticulitis (118; 12%) and cholecystitis (52; 5%). The sensitivity of CT in detecting appendicitis and diverticulitis was significantly higher than that of ultrasound: 94% versus 76% (p < 0.01) and 81% versus 61% (p = 0.048), respectively. For cholecystitis, the sensitivity of both was 73% (p = 1.00). Positive predictive values did not differ significantly between ultrasound and CT for these conditions. Ultrasound sensitivity in detecting appendicitis and diverticulitis was not significantly negatively affected by patient characteristics or reader experience. CONCLUSION: CT misses fewer cases than ultrasound, but both ultrasound and CT can reliably detect common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. Ultrasound sensitivity was largely not influenced by patient characteristics and reader experience.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(1961) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/pgmj.37.425.168-b · Cited by 5,862
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(1959) · Health Physics · doi:10.1097/00004032-195901000-00001 · Cited by 1,703
Benefits and costs, an eternal balance
Dixon, A. K. (2007) · Annals of the ICRP · doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2007.09.001 · Cited by 1,355
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods
Rutjes, A., Reitsma, J., Coomarasamy, A., Khan, K., & Bossuyt, P. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11500 · Cited by 524
Self-citationTerasawa, T., Blackmore, C. C., Bent, S., & Kohlwes, R. J. (2004) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-7-200410050-00011 · Cited by 443
Imaging Patients with Acute Abdominal Pain
Stoker, J., van Randen, A., Laméris, W., & Boermeester, M. A. (2009) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2531090302 · Cited by 431
Self-citationLameris, W., van Randen, A., van Es, H. W., van Heesewijk, J. P. M., van Ramshorst, B., Bouma, W. H., ten Hove, W., van Leeuwen, M. S., van Keulen, E. M., Dijkgraaf, M. G. W., et al. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2431 · Cited by 416
Self-citationGurusamy, K., Samraj, K., Gluud, C., Wilson, E., & Davidson, B. R. (2010) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.6870 · Cited by 366
van Randen, A., Bipat, S., Zwinderman, A. H., Ubbink, D. T., Stoker, J., & Boermeester, M. A. (2008) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2483071652 · Cited by 357
Self-citationLeeflang, M. M. G., Moons, K. G. M., Reitsma, J. B., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2008) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.096032 · Cited by 346
Cited by
Practice Parameters for the Treatment of Sigmoid Diverticulitis
Feingold, D., Steele, S. R., Lee, S., Kaiser, A., Boushey, R., Buie, W. D., & Rafferty, J. F. (2014) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000000075 · Cited by 543
Henes, F. O., Pickhardt, P. J., Herzyk, A., Lee, S. J., Motosugi, U., Derlin, T., Lubner, M. G., Adam, G., Schön, G., & Bannas, P. (2017) · Abdominal Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00261-016-0988-0 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- on behalf of the OPTIMA study group, van Randen, A., Laméris, W., van Es, H. W., van Heesewijk, H. P. M., van Ramshorst, B., ten Hove, W., Bouma, W. H., van Leeuwen, M. S., van Keulen, E. M., Bossuyt, P. M., Stoker, J., & Boermeester, M. A.
- Venue
- European Radiology
- Published
- 2011-03-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1535-1545
- ISSN
- 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1084
- OpenAlex
- W2096150699
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 20.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of the Accuracy of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00330-011-2087-5
- The paper
- on behalf of the OPTIMA study group, van Randen, A., Laméris, W., van Es, H. W., van Heesewijk, H. P. M., van Ramshorst, B., ten Hove, W., Bouma, W. H., van Leeuwen, M. S., van Keulen, E. M., Bossuyt, P. M., Stoker, J., & Boermeester, M. A. (2011). A comparison of the Accuracy of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. European Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2087-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
