Simple view
Full metadata view
Authors
Statistics
Clinically unjustified diagnostic imaging : a worrisome tendency in today's medical practice
magnetic resonance imaging
referral and consultation
tomography
spiral computed
Bibliogr. s. 330
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the percentage of unjustified examinations among all the CT and MRI studies performed by two radiology departments and to determine the types of examinations which are most commonly carried out unnecessarily. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three radiologists assessed the justification of CT and MRI examinations performed during a period of 14 days based on the referrals. The radiologists assessed 799 referrals for CT scans (847 examinations of a particular part of the body) and 269 MRI referrals (269 examinations). The criteria for justification were: medical expertise and the guidelines. During the first stage radiologists divided the examinations into 3 groups: justified, unjustified and the examinations of questionable justification. The second step was to determine the reasons why the studies were considered as unjustified or of questionable justification. RESULTS: 73 of 1116 examinations (6.54%) were considered to be unjustified or of a questionable justification. There were 59 CT scans (59/847=6.97%) and 14 MRI studies (14/269=5.20%). The most common reasons to consider them as unjustified or of questionable justification were: inadequate method of diagnostic imaging chosen as a first-line tool and lacking or insufficient clinical details. CONCLUSIONS: In our investigation 6.54% of both CT and MRI examinations were considered as unjustified or of questionable justification, which is lower than described in other studies (from 7% to 26%). The assessment was based only on referrals, therefore a total share of these examinations is likely to be higher.
dc.abstract.en | BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the percentage of unjustified examinations among all the CT and MRI studies performed by two radiology departments and to determine the types of examinations which are most commonly carried out unnecessarily. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three radiologists assessed the justification of CT and MRI examinations performed during a period of 14 days based on the referrals. The radiologists assessed 799 referrals for CT scans (847 examinations of a particular part of the body) and 269 MRI referrals (269 examinations). The criteria for justification were: medical expertise and the guidelines. During the first stage radiologists divided the examinations into 3 groups: justified, unjustified and the examinations of questionable justification. The second step was to determine the reasons why the studies were considered as unjustified or of questionable justification. RESULTS: 73 of 1116 examinations (6.54%) were considered to be unjustified or of a questionable justification. There were 59 CT scans (59/847=6.97%) and 14 MRI studies (14/269=5.20%). The most common reasons to consider them as unjustified or of questionable justification were: inadequate method of diagnostic imaging chosen as a first-line tool and lacking or insufficient clinical details. CONCLUSIONS: In our investigation 6.54% of both CT and MRI examinations were considered as unjustified or of questionable justification, which is lower than described in other studies (from 7% to 26%). The assessment was based only on referrals, therefore a total share of these examinations is likely to be higher. | pl |
dc.contributor.author | Sobiecka, Aleksandra | pl |
dc.contributor.author | Bekiesińska-Figatowska, Monika | pl |
dc.contributor.author | Rutkowska, Milena | pl |
dc.contributor.author | Latos, Tomasz | pl |
dc.contributor.author | Walecki, Jerzy | pl |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-05-09T07:34:20Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-05-09T07:34:20Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | pl |
dc.date.openaccess | 0 | |
dc.description.accesstime | w momencie opublikowania | |
dc.description.additional | Bibliogr. s. 330 | pl |
dc.description.physical | 325-330 | pl |
dc.description.version | ostateczna wersja wydawcy | |
dc.description.volume | 81 | pl |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.12659/PJR.896847 | pl |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1899-0967 | pl |
dc.identifier.issn | 1733-134X | pl |
dc.identifier.uri | http://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/40195 | |
dc.language | eng | pl |
dc.language.container | eng | pl |
dc.rights | Udzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne - Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polska | * |
dc.rights.licence | CC-BY-NC-ND | |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pl/legalcode | * |
dc.share.type | otwarte czasopismo | |
dc.subject.en | magnetic resonance imaging | pl |
dc.subject.en | referral and consultation | pl |
dc.subject.en | tomography | pl |
dc.subject.en | spiral computed | pl |
dc.subtype | Article | pl |
dc.title | Clinically unjustified diagnostic imaging : a worrisome tendency in today's medical practice | pl |
dc.title.journal | Polish Journal of Radiology | pl |
dc.type | JournalArticle | pl |
dspace.entity.type | Publication |
* The migration of download and view statistics prior to the date of April 8, 2024 is in progress.
Views
2
Views per month
Views per city
Downloads
Open Access