The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Traumatic aortic injury: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced thoracic CT--five-year experience at a major trauma center.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the literature and the authors' experience with admission contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in patients admitted after blunt trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1990 to December 1994, thoracic CT was performed to evaluate traumatic aortic injury in 677 patients with positive or equivocal findings at chest radiography. CT scans positive for mediastinal hemorrhage or aortic injury were retrospectively reviewed and interpreted by consensus, with angiographic and surgical confirmation. RESULTS: CT findings were negative for TAI in 570 (84%) of the 677 patients. Mediastinal hemorrhage was reported in 100 patients and was the only abnormality in 79 of them. Findings at angiography were negative for traumatic aortic injury in 77 (97%). CT signs of traumatic aortic injury in 21 patients included contour abnormality or pseudoaneurysm (n = 19), intimal flap(s) (n = 8), and pseudocoarctation (n = 3). Findings at angiography were positive for traumatic aortic injury in 19 (90%). For aortic injury and mediastinal hemorrhage, respectively, specificity for traumatic aortic injury was 99% and 87% and sensitivity was 90% and 100%; at meta-analysis of data from the authors and the literature, sensitivity was 97.0% and 99.3% and specificity was 99.8% and 87.1%. Reliance on findings at admission CT rather than radiography to indicate suspicion for traumatic aortic injury before angiography resulted in savings of more than $365,000. CONCLUSION: The CT finding of mediastinal hemorrhage alone is sensitive for traumatic aortic injury, but the finding of aortic injury is more specific.
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
Cited by
WRITING GROUP MEMBERS, Hiratzka, L. F., Bakris, G. L., Beckman, J. A., Bersin, R. M., Carr, V. F., Casey, D. E., Eagle, K. A., Hermann, L. K., Isselbacher, E. M., et al. (2010) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e3181d4739e · Cited by 2,289
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Goldstein, S. A., Evangelista, A., Abbara, S., Arai, A., Asch, F. M., Badano, L. P., Bolen, M. A., Connolly, H. M., Cuéllar-Calàbria, H., Czerny, M., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2014.11.015 · Cited by 641
Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues.
Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.56.2.128 · Cited by 1,469
Metadata
- Authors
- Mirvis, S. E., Shanmuganathan, K., Miller, B. H., White, C. S., & Turney, S. Z.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 1996-08
- Volume
- 200
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 413-422
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1989402920
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Traumatic aortic injury: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced thoracic CT--five-year experience at a major trauma center. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.200.2.8685335
- The paper
- Mirvis, S. E., Shanmuganathan, K., Miller, B. H., White, C. S., & Turney, S. Z. (1996). Traumatic aortic injury: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced thoracic CT--five-year experience at a major trauma center. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.200.2.8685335
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.