Objective To identify an optimal imaging strategy for the accurate detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain. Design Fully paired multicentre diagnostic accuracy study with prospective data collection. Setting Emergency departments of two university hospitals and four large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants 1021 patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain of >2 hours' and <5 days' duration. Exclusion criteria were discharge from the emergency department with no imaging considered warranted by the treating physician, pregnancy, and haemorrhagic shock. Intervention All patients had plain radiographs (upright chest and supine abdominal), ultrasonography, and computed tomography (CT) after clinical and laboratory examination. A panel of experienced physicians assigned a final diagnosis after six months and classified the condition as urgent or non-urgent. Main outcome measures Sensitivity and specificity for urgent conditions, percentage of missed cases and false positives, and exposure to radiation for single imaging strategies, conditional imaging strategies (CT after initial ultrasonography), and strategies driven by body mass index and age or by location of pain. Results 661 (65%) patients had a final diagnosis classified as urgent. The initial clinical diagnosis resulted in many false positive urgent diagnoses, which were significantly reduced after ultrasonography or CT. CT detected more urgent diagnoses than did ultrasonography: sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval 87% to 92%) for CT and 70% (67% to 74%) for ultrasonography (P<0.001). A conditional strategy with CT only after negative or inconclusive ultrasonography yielded the highest sensitivity, missing only 6% of urgent cases. With this strategy, only 49% (46% to 52%) of patients would have CT. Alternative strategies guided by body mass index, age, or location of the pain would all result in a loss of sensitivity. Conclusion Although CT is the most sensitive imaging investigation for detecting urgent conditions in patients with abdominal pain, using ultrasonography first and CT only in those with negative or inconclusive ultrasonography results in the best sensitivity and lowers exposure to radiation.

National Institute of Health Research, Imperial College London.

Mutations in SFTPC are a frequent cause of FPF in adult patients in our cohort. Nonclassifiable radiological patterns with cystic changes and histopathological patterns of usual interstitial pneumonia are characteristics of adult SFTPC mutation carriers.

ObjectivesHead-to-head comparison of ultrasound and CT accuracy in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain.Materials and methodsConsecutive patients with abdominal pain for >2 h and <5 days referred for imaging underwent both US and CT by different radiologists/radiological residents. An expert panel assigned a final diagnosis. Ultrasound and CT sensitivity and predictive values were calculated for frequent final diagnoses. Effect of patient characteristics and observer experience on ultrasound sensitivity was studied.ResultsFrequent final diagnoses in the 1,021 patients (mean age 47; 55% female) were appendicitis (284; 28%), diverticulitis (118; 12%) and cholecystitis (52; 5%). The sensitivity of CT in detecting appendicitis and diverticulitis was significantly higher than that of ultrasound: 94% versus 76% (p < 0.01) and 81% versus 61% (p = 0.048), respectively. For cholecystitis, the sensitivity of both was 73% (p = 1.00). Positive predictive values did not differ significantly between ultrasound and CT for these conditions. Ultrasound sensitivity in detecting appendicitis and diverticulitis was not significantly negatively affected by patient characteristics or reader experience.ConclusionCT misses fewer cases than ultrasound, but both ultrasound and CT can reliably detect common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. Ultrasound sensitivity was largely not influenced by patient characteristics and reader experience.

The predictive accuracy of CT scoring systems for severity of AP is similar to clinical scoring systems. Hence, a CT on admission solely for severity assessment in AP is not recommended.

The authors propose calling this neuropathy "multifocal inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy" and considering it as a distinct clinical entity to facilitate early diagnosis of this treatable disorder.

No significant differences were noted between the CTSI and the MCTSI in evaluating the severity of AP. Compared with APACHE II, both CT indexes more accurately diagnose clinically severe disease and better correlate with the need for intervention and pancreatic infection.

As multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a potentially treatable disorder, its differentiation from lower motor neuron disease is important. Evidence of conduction block (CB) is considered one of the relevant criteria for the diagnosis of MMN. Strict criteria for CB may lead to underdiagnosis of MMN, however. Using a standardized examination, we studied the clinical, laboratory, and electrophysiological characteristics of 37 patients presenting with a lower motor neuron disorder and electrophysiological features compatible with segmental demyelination. We propose a set of clinical, laboratory, and electrophysiological criteria for the diagnosis of MMN, which has been verified by follow‐up and response to treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins. Based on the clinical, laboratory, and electrodiagnostic features, 21 patients were diagnosed with definite MMN (17 responders), 7 were diagnosed with probable MMN (5 responders), and 9 were diagnosed with possible MMN (1 responder). Age at onset, the number of affected limb regions, and the number of patients with a creatine kinase level greater than 180 U/L were significantly lower in responders than in nonresponders. Elevated anti‐GM1 antibodies and definite CB were found significantly more often in responders. The proposed diagnostic criteria may be useful in clinical practice and therapeutic trials. Ann Neurol 2000;48:919–926