ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Contrast-enhanced CT in sepsis: insights from a European Emergency Radiology survey.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo gain insight into emergency radiologists' views on the role of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in sepsis management. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis analysis of a survey distributed in 2023 to members of the European Society of Emergency Radiology (ESER) (n = 297) gathered perspectives on the role of CECT in patients with sepsis. The previously validated questionnaire used for this survey encompassed demographic information, clinical experience, and inquiries regarding the timing and rationale for CT. Results were compared with data from a prior single-center survey among clinicians and general radiologists. Responses were collected anonymously and analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. As not all items were mandatory, item-specific response numbers may vary and are reported accordingly throughout the manuscript.
resultsA total of 144 emergency radiologists participated, with most of them endorsing a 1-6-h timeframe for CECT after the diagnosis of sepsis (45.8%; n = 27/59). However, a notable proportion accepted longer intervals > 12 h (35.6%; n = 21/59). Emergency radiologists particularly opted for repeat imaging in patients with sepsis and clinical deterioration (35.3%; 24/68), whereas clinicians tended to be more hesitant (2.9%; n = 10/341).
conclusionThe results of this survey indicate strong agreement among emergency radiologists on the relevance of prompt CECT for the timely diagnostic management of patients with sepsis. Several aspects related to timing and indication show significant interdisciplinary differences, requiring further study. KEY POINTS: Question While contrast-enhanced CT can aid in detecting the infectious focus, this study explores emergency radiologists' perspectives on its role in sepsis management. Findings Radiologists and clinicians from different subspecialties agree on the importance of promptly performed (≥ 1-6 h) CECT in sepsis management and the contraindications of contrast application. Clinical relevance This survey shows that radiologists and clinicians largely agree on the importance of CECT in sepsis management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.