Der Radiologe · 2006
[Are chest radiographs justified in pre-employment examinations? Presentation of legal position and medical evidence based on 1760 cases].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ladd S C, Krause U, Ladd M E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The legal and medical basis for chest radiographs as part of pre-employment examinations (PEE) at a University Hospital is evaluated. The radiographs are primarily performed to exclude infectious lung disease.
METHODS: A total of 1760 consecutive chest radiographs performed as a routine part of PEEs were reviewed retrospectively. Pathologic findings were categorized as "nonrelevant" or "relevant."
RESULTS: No positive finding with respect to tuberculosis or any other infectious disease was found; 94.8% of the chest radiographs were completely normal. Only five findings were regarded as "relevant" for the individual. No employment-relevant diagnosis occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of chest radiography as part of a PEE is most often not justified. The practice is expensive, can violate national and European law, and lacks medical justification.
METHODS: A total of 1760 consecutive chest radiographs performed as a routine part of PEEs were reviewed retrospectively. Pathologic findings were categorized as "nonrelevant" or "relevant."
RESULTS: No positive finding with respect to tuberculosis or any other infectious disease was found; 94.8% of the chest radiographs were completely normal. Only five findings were regarded as "relevant" for the individual. No employment-relevant diagnosis occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of chest radiography as part of a PEE is most often not justified. The practice is expensive, can violate national and European law, and lacks medical justification.