ライフサイエンスコーパス: abdominal injury

1 y, autopsy, and/or clinical course for intra-abdominal injury.

2 t a normal result does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury.

3 (LR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3-5.9) suggest an intra-abdominal injury.

4 patients had false-negative US findings for abdominal injury.

5 uboptimally restrained children to suffer an abdominal injury.

6 ion between transverse process fractures and abdominal injury.

7 FAST and 86.1% abdominal CT; 159 (34.0%) had abdominal injuries.

8 to suffer severe extracranial, particularly abdominal, injuries.

9 Forty-five adults with abdominal injury (46.7%) or intra-abdominal sepsis (52.3

10 uire further diagnostic evaluation for intra-abdominal injuries after blunt abdominal trauma.

11 k patients were 24 times more likely to have abdominal injuries after negative US findings (30 [6.1%]

12 inadvisability of nonoperative management of abdominal injury after combat trauma.

13 definitive intervention for life-threatening abdominal injuries and a cornerstone of trauma care glob

14 he application of DC to increasingly complex abdominal injuries and thoracic, peripheral vascular, an

15 risk patients, the absolute risks for missed abdominal injury associated with specific predictors wer

16 the diagnosis and treatment of children with abdominal injury by radiologists and endoscopists.

17 he British Paediatric Surveillance Unit) had abdominal injuries due to abuse and 164 (identified via

18 We aimed to ascertain the incidence of abdominal injury due to abuse in children age 0-14 years

19 Incidence of abdominal injury due to abuse was 2.33 cases per million

20 mographic (CT) scans in the ED, missed intra-abdominal injuries, ED length of stay, and hospital char

21 For detection of intra-abdominal injury, FAST sensitivity (Sn) was 0.56, specif

22 This condition occurs in response to abdominal injury, gallstones, chronic alcohol consumptio

23 on specific types of injuries, in particular abdominal injuries, has not been demonstrated.

24 aging associated with the diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries (IAI), as well as review the current

25 verse process fractures were associated with abdominal injuries in 20 (51%) patients; this associatio

26 ribes the cause, management, and outcomes of abdominal injury in a mature deployed military trauma sy

27 The prevalence of intra-abdominal injury in adult emergency department patients

28 tive clinical observation virtually excludes abdominal injury in patients who are admitted and observ

29 or pelvis are objective predictors of missed abdominal injury in patients with blunt abdominal trauma

30 t results increasing the likelihood of intra-abdominal injury include a base deficit less than -6 mEq

31 CI, 4.0% to 7.1%) were diagnosed with intra-abdominal injuries, including 40 (80%; 95% CI, 66% to 90

32 Diagnosis of abuse in children with internal abdominal injury is difficult because of limited publish

33 One case of missed intra-abdominal injury occurred in a patient in the FAST group

34 ng performance in the detection of traumatic abdominal injuries on CT scans, particularly high-grade

35 Excessive systemic inflammation after abdominal injury or intra-abdominal sepsis is associated

36 f resources; ED length of stay; missed intra-abdominal injuries; or hospital charges.

37 d diagnoses of traumatic brain injury, intra-abdominal injury, pelvic fracture, femur fracture, and s

38 Of note, there were no abdominal injuries reported among optimally restrained 4

39 ables for identifying patients without intra-abdominal injury requires further study.

40 d with admission vs transfer included severe abdominal injuries (risk difference, 15.9%; 95% CI, 9.4%

41 Patients with proven pneumonia had higher abdominal injury scores.

42 ness to palpation does not rule out an intra-abdominal injury (summary LR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80).

43 hildren are at a significantly lower risk of abdominal injury than children suboptimally restrained f

44 ded studies of diagnostic accuracy for intra-abdominal injury that compared at least 1 finding with a

45 The risk for missed abdominal injury was determined for each patient risk gr

46 Abdominal injury was observed in 85% of patients, and 48

47 The outcome of interest, abdominal injury, was defined as any reported injury to

48 Number and type of associated abdominal injuries were recorded.

49 ed to estimate the probability of underlying abdominal injury, which organ was injured, their level o

50 ith ISS 9-24 in the absence of serious extra-abdominal injury who undergo surgery within 24 h of pres

51 cal decision rules are able to predict intra-abdominal injury with high sensitivity.

52 often removed in laparotomy after traumatic abdominal injury, with little effort made to preserve th