AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightIt was found that the sensitivity and specificity were as 96% and 88% in the grey white or separation, sensitivity was 91% and specificity was 76% in the ventricle constriction, average sensitivity and specificity were 99% and 86% in the SAK, EDH and SDH, and 99% and 97% in the cerebral infarct, and 97% and 91% in the cerebellar infarct, respectively.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Aim: The Computerized Brain Tomography is extremely used in the diagnosis of the neurological diseases. The aim of the study was to evaluate the competency of emergency medicine physicians’ in the evaluations and diagnosis of “computerized brain tomography” (CBT) of the neurological disease findings in non-traumatic cases Materials and Methods: This study was made in the Emergency Department of a tertiary training hospital between 2015 and 2016. The CBT images, taken for the patients were evaluated by the emergency medicine physician. The tomography interpretations, provided by the radiology physicians, were considered as the gold standardas the accurate finding, and findings of the emergency medicine physician were compared with the accurate findings. Results: Totally 197 patients inclueded. It was found that the sensitivity and specificity were as 96% and 88% in the grey white or separation, sensitivity was 91% and specificity was 76% in the ventricle constriction, average sensitivity and specificity were 99% and 86% in the SAK, EDH and SDH, and 99% and 97% in the cerebral infarct, and 97% and 91% in the cerebellar infarct, respectively. Conclusion: In our study, emergency medicine physicians were highly successful in the interpretation of the CBT of patients with nontraumatic neurological incidents and it was in an excellent harmony with the radiologists’ interpretations. The success rates of interpretation of CBT may be increased with practical and theoretical comprehensive training of the emergency medicine physicians.