Cross-sectional study compares diagnostic accuracy of FAST for trauma in EM and radiology residents, indicating similar performance outcomes.
Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) performed by emergency medicine (EM) residents versus radiology residents in detecting intra-peritoneal free fluid, using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen as the reference standard. Methods: This cross-sectional diagnostic validation study was conducted over six months (July–December 2024) in the Emergency Department of POF Wah Cantt. A total of 285 adult patients (aged 16–65 years) with blunt abdominal trauma, who were hemodynamically stable, were enrolled through non-probability consecutive sampling. All patients underwent FAST scans performed independently by EM and radiology residents, blinded to each other's findings. The reference test was CT abdomen, reported by a consultant radiologist. Diagnostic accuracy parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], negative predictive value [NPV], and overall accuracy) were calculated for each group, with subgroup analyses by gender, age, and mechanism of injury. Results: Intra-peritoneal free fluid was confirmed on CT in 43 patients (15.1%). EM residents demonstrated 72.1% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, 81.6% PPV, 95.1% NPV, and 93.3% accuracy. Radiology residents yielded 74.4% sensitivity, 98.3% specificity, 88.9% PPV, 95.6% NPV, and 95.1% accuracy. Subgroup analyses by gender, age, and injury mechanism revealed consistent performance across all strata. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups for any metric (p > 0.05). Conclusion: FAST scans performed by trained EM residents demonstrated diagnostic accuracy comparable to radiology residents, supporting their reliable use in the initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alkahtani et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: