Representation and Utilization of Laboratory Data in CT-Based Acute Abdominal Emergency Radiology: A Methodological Content Analysis

TL;DR

This study examines how lab data are reported and used in radiology papers on acute abdominal emergencies, finding they are often mentioned but rarely integrated with imaging findings.

Contribution

The study introduces a methodological content analysis to evaluate the integration of laboratory data in CT-based radiology research on acute abdominal emergencies.

Findings

Laboratory data were reported in 61.1% of the analyzed radiology articles.

Only 15.3% of studies explicitly integrated laboratory and imaging data.

Decision-oriented reporting was present in 23.6% of the studies.

Abstract

Acute abdominal emergencies are common and time-critical conditions in emergency medicine, where laboratory tests and computed tomography (CT) are routinely used together to support diagnosis and management. In clinical practice, laboratory abnormalities often guide imaging decisions and influence diagnostic confidence. However, it remains unclear whether this integrated diagnostic approach is consistently reflected in radiology research publications. In this study, we analyzed recent CT-based radiology articles on acute abdominal emergencies to evaluate how laboratory data are reported and used alongside imaging findings. We found that laboratory results are frequently mentioned but are often limited to background information and are less commonly integrated into imaging interpretation or decision-making. Improving laboratory–imaging integration in radiology publications may enhance clinical relevance and interdisciplinary communication.

Background: Acute abdominal emergencies represent a major diagnostic challenge in emergency medicine, requiring rapid and accurate integration of clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. Although laboratory parameters play a central role in real-world diagnostic workflows, the extent to which they are systematically represented and integrated within radiology research publications remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate how laboratory data are represented, contextualized, and functionally utilized in radiology publications focusing on computed tomography (CT)–based evaluation of acute abdominal emergencies. Methods: A methodological content analysis was conducted on 72 original radiology research articles published between 2020 and 2024. Eligible studies focused on CT-based imaging of acute abdominal emergency conditions. Publications were screened and analyzed at the title and abstract level using a predefined coding framework to assess the presence of laboratory data, types of laboratory parameters reported, their contextual role (background information, imaging trigger, diagnostic modifier, or prognostic indicator), degree of laboratory–imaging integration, and presence of decision-oriented reporting. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize reporting patterns. Results: Laboratory data were reported in 61.1% of all included studies (n = 44/72). However, their functional utilization varied substantially. Laboratory parameters were most frequently presented as background clinical information, whereas explicit use as imaging triggers (26.4%, n = 19/72), diagnostic modifiers (19.4%, n = 14/72), or components of explicit laboratory–imaging integration (15.3%, n = 11/72) was less common. Decision-oriented reporting was present in 23.6% of all studies (n = 17/72). Explicit integration was described in publications addressing diagnostically complex and time-sensitive conditions, such as acute bowel ischemia and severe acute pancreatitis. Conclusion: Laboratory data are commonly reported in CT-based radiology publications addressing acute abdominal emergencies; however, the manner in which these data are incorporated into imaging-centered diagnostic narratives varies across studies. Differences are observed in how laboratory–imaging relationships are described, with some publications presenting integrated discussion and others reporting imaging findings independently of laboratory context. These observations characterize reporting practices within the analyzed literature and do not imply statistical associations or causal effects.

Figures