The American journal of emergency medicine · 2017
Radiology report "disclaimers" increase the use of abdominal CT in the work-up of pediatric abdominal pain.
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.
Alter Scott M, Walsh Brian, Lenehan Patrick J, Shih Richard D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Pediatric abdominal pain is commonly evaluated in the emergency department (ED) initially by ultrasonography (U/S). Radiology reports often include commentary about U/S limitations and possible need for additional testing or evaluation independent of study interpretation. We sought to determine if presence of a "disclaimer" is associated with additional imaging.
METHODS: Design: Retrospective cohort.
SETTING: Community ED with volume of 85,000 annual visits.
POPULATION: Consecutive ED patients <21-years-old with appendix U/S over 12-months. Radiologist reports were assessed for disclaimers and if definitive diagnoses of appendicitis were made. The incidence of subsequent CT imaging was determined and group differences between categories were calculated.
RESULTS: 441 eligible patients were identified with average age 11.7years. Of all U/S studies, 26% were definitive for appendicitis and 74% were non-definitive. Disclaimers were included on 60% of all studies, including 13% of definitive studies and 76% of non-definitive studies. 25% of all studies including a disclaimer had follow-up CT versus 10% of studies without a disclaimer (15% difference; 95% CI: 9-21). For patients with definitive interpretations, 6% had follow-up CT with no significant difference between groups with or without a disclaimer. For patients with non-definitive studies, 26% with a disclaimer had follow-up CT scans versus 13% without a disclaimer (13% difference; 95% CI: 4-22).
CONCLUSIONS: Appendix ultrasound interpretations often include a disclaimer, which leads to a 150% increase in follow-up CT imaging. We suggest that radiologists consider the impact of including such a disclaimer, knowing that this may contribute to possible unnecessary imaging.
METHODS: Design: Retrospective cohort.
SETTING: Community ED with volume of 85,000 annual visits.
POPULATION: Consecutive ED patients <21-years-old with appendix U/S over 12-months. Radiologist reports were assessed for disclaimers and if definitive diagnoses of appendicitis were made. The incidence of subsequent CT imaging was determined and group differences between categories were calculated.
RESULTS: 441 eligible patients were identified with average age 11.7years. Of all U/S studies, 26% were definitive for appendicitis and 74% were non-definitive. Disclaimers were included on 60% of all studies, including 13% of definitive studies and 76% of non-definitive studies. 25% of all studies including a disclaimer had follow-up CT versus 10% of studies without a disclaimer (15% difference; 95% CI: 9-21). For patients with definitive interpretations, 6% had follow-up CT with no significant difference between groups with or without a disclaimer. For patients with non-definitive studies, 26% with a disclaimer had follow-up CT scans versus 13% without a disclaimer (13% difference; 95% CI: 4-22).
CONCLUSIONS: Appendix ultrasound interpretations often include a disclaimer, which leads to a 150% increase in follow-up CT imaging. We suggest that radiologists consider the impact of including such a disclaimer, knowing that this may contribute to possible unnecessary imaging.