This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Diagnostic accuracy of surgeons and trainees in assessment of patients with acute abdominal pain. BJS 2016; 103: 1343-1349.
Published: 28th July 2016
Authors: J. J. S. Kiewiet, S. L. Gans, J. S. K. Luitse, H. L. van Westreenen, B. Lamme, L. Welling et al.
Background
Diagnostic accuracy in the assessment of patients with acute abdominal pain in the emergency ward is not adequate. It has been argued that this is because the investigations are carried out predominantly by a trainee. Resource utilization could be lowered if surgeons had a higher initial diagnostic accuracy.
Method
Patients with acute abdominal pain were included in a prospective cohort study. A surgical trainee and a surgeon made independent assessments in the emergency department, recording the clinical diagnosis and proposed diagnostic investigations. A reference standard diagnosis was established by an expert panel, and the proportion of correct diagnoses was calculated. Diagnostic accuracy was expressed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Interobserver agreement for the diagnosis and elements of history‐taking and physical examination were expressed by means of Cohen's κ. Certainty of diagnosis was recorded using a visual analogue scale.
Results
A trainee and a surgeon independently assessed 126 patients. Trainees made a correct diagnosis in 44·4 per cent of patients and surgeons in 42·9 per cent (
Conclusion
The diagnostic accuracy of the initial clinical assessment is not improved when a surgeon rather than a surgical trainee assesses a patient with abdominal pain in the emergency department.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Leading article
Authors: C. Chamberlain, J. M. Blazeby
Original article
Authors: S. J. Chapman, R. C. Grossman, M. E. B. FitzPatrick, R. R. W. Brady
Systematic review
Authors: H. K. James, A. W. Chapman, G. T. R. Pattison, D. R. Griffin, J. D. Fisher
Systematic review
Authors: J. H. H. Olsen, S. Öberg, K. Andresen, T. W. Klausen, J. Rosenberg
Original article
Authors: L. Heylen, J. Pirenne, U. Samuel, I. Tieken, M. Coemans, M. Naesens et al.
Original article
Authors: L. Cairncross, H. A. Snow, D. C. Strauss, M. J. F. Smith, O. Sjokvist, C. Messiou et al.
Original article
Authors: R. J. Dinsdale, J. Hazeldine, K. Al Tarrah, P. Hampson, A. Devi, C. Ermogenous et al.
Original article
Authors: C. A. Sewalt, E. Venema, E. J. A. Wiegers, F. E. Lecky, S. C. E. Schuit, D. den Hartog et al.
Article
Authors: A. M Lacy, R. Bravo, A. M. Otero‐Piñeiro, R. Pena, F. B. De Lacy, R. Menchaca et al.
Original article
Authors: P. Ghorbani, T. Troëng, O. Brattström, K. G. Ringdal, T. Eken, A. Ekbom et al.
Original article
Authors: E. H. Wright, M. Tyler, B. Vojnovic, J. Pleat, A. Harris, D. Furniss et al.
Original article
Authors: N. Patel, R. J. Egan, B. R. Carter, D. M. Scott‐Coombes, M. J. Stechman, A. Afzaal et al.