↓ Skip to main content

Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the pediatric emergency department, 2000–2006

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Radiology, May 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
215 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the pediatric emergency department, 2000–2006
Published in
Emergency Radiology, May 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10140-007-0618-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua Broder, Lynn Ansley Fordham, David M. Warshauer

Abstract

The objective of this study is to characterize changes in computed tomography (CT) utilization in the pediatric emergency department (ED) over a 6-year period. CT scans ordered on pediatric (ages 0 to 17 years) ED patients from July 2000 to July 2006 were analyzed in five groups: head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen, and miscellaneous. Pediatric ED patient volume and triage acuity scores were determined. There were 6,073 CT scans performed on 4,138 pediatric patients in the ED during the study period. During this same period, 78,932 pediatric patients were evaluated in the ED. From 2000 to 2006, pediatric ED patient volume increased by 2%, while triage acuity remained stable. During this same period, head CT increased by 23%, cervical spine CT by 366%, chest CT by 435%, abdominal CT by 49%, and miscellaneous CT by 96%. Increases in CT utilization were most pronounced in adolescents ages 13 to 17 years. Increases in CT utilization in this age group met or exceeded increases seen in the adult population. In children less than 13 years of age, increases were substantially smaller. Pediatric ED CT utilization particularly in the adolescent population has increased at a rate far exceeding the growth in ED patient volume, mimicking the adult trend. This increase has occurred despite considerable discussion in the medical literature about the radiation risks of CT in the pediatric population and may reflect increased availability of CT, improvements in CT diagnostic capabilities, and increased desire on the part of physicians and patients for diagnostic certainty. Whether this increased utilization results in improved patient outcomes is uncertain and deserves further study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 80 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Other 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 61%
Physics and Astronomy 5 6%
Engineering 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 18 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2013.
All research outputs
#15,270,698
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Radiology
#325
of 517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,036
of 71,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Radiology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 517 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 71,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.