Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 416

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study

Open access
Lameris, 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, Bossuyt, P. M M, Boermeester, M. A, Stoker, J., on behalf of the OPTIMA study group·2009·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify an optimal imaging strategy for the accurate detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain. DESIGN: Fully paired multicentre diagnostic accuracy study with prospective data collection. SETTING: Emergency departments of two university hospitals and four large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 1021 patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain of >2 hours' and <5 days' duration. Exclusion criteria were discharge from the emergency department with no imaging considered warranted by the treating physician, pregnancy, and haemorrhagic shock. INTERVENTION: All patients had plain radiographs (upright chest and supine abdominal), ultrasonography, and computed tomography (CT) after clinical and laboratory examination. A panel of experienced physicians assigned a final diagnosis after six months and classified the condition as urgent or non-urgent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity for urgent conditions, percentage of missed cases and false positives, and exposure to radiation for single imaging strategies, conditional imaging strategies (CT after initial ultrasonography), and strategies driven by body mass index and age or by location of pain. RESULTS: 661 (65%) patients had a final diagnosis classified as urgent. The initial clinical diagnosis resulted in many false positive urgent diagnoses, which were significantly reduced after ultrasonography or CT. CT detected more urgent diagnoses than did ultrasonography: sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval 87% to 92%) for CT and 70% (67% to 74%) for ultrasonography (P<0.001). A conditional strategy with CT only after negative or inconclusive ultrasonography yielded the highest sensitivity, missing only 6% of urgent cases. With this strategy, only 49% (46% to 52%) of patients would have CT. Alternative strategies guided by body mass index, age, or location of the pain would all result in a loss of sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Although CT is the most sensitive imaging investigation for detecting urgent conditions in patients with abdominal pain, using ultrasonography first and CT only in those with negative or inconclusive ultrasonography results in the best sensitivity and lowers exposure to radiation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.b2431

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 416

Metadata

Authors
Lameris, 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., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Boermeester, M. A., Stoker, J., & on behalf of the OPTIMA study group
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-06-26
Volume
338
Issue
jun26 2
Pages
b2431-b2431
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2142007213
Cited by
416
References
0
FWCI
13.77
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: Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.b2431
The paper
Lameris, 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., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Boermeester, M. A., Stoker, J., & on behalf of the OPTIMA study group. (2009). Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2431

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.