Clinically unjustified diagnostic imaging : a worrisome tendency in today's medical practice

2016
journal article
article
19
dc.abstract.enBACKGROUND: 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.authorSobiecka, Aleksandrapl
dc.contributor.authorBekiesińska-Figatowska, Monikapl
dc.contributor.authorRutkowska, Milenapl
dc.contributor.authorLatos, Tomaszpl
dc.contributor.authorWalecki, Jerzypl
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-09T07:34:20Z
dc.date.available2017-05-09T07:34:20Z
dc.date.issued2016pl
dc.date.openaccess0
dc.description.accesstimew momencie opublikowania
dc.description.additionalBibliogr. s. 330pl
dc.description.physical325-330pl
dc.description.versionostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.description.volume81pl
dc.identifier.doi10.12659/PJR.896847pl
dc.identifier.eissn1899-0967pl
dc.identifier.issn1733-134Xpl
dc.identifier.urihttp://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/40195
dc.languageengpl
dc.language.containerengpl
dc.rightsUdzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne - Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polska*
dc.rights.licenceCC-BY-NC-ND
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pl/legalcode*
dc.share.typeotwarte czasopismo
dc.subject.enmagnetic resonance imagingpl
dc.subject.enreferral and consultationpl
dc.subject.entomographypl
dc.subject.enspiral computedpl
dc.subtypeArticlepl
dc.titleClinically unjustified diagnostic imaging : a worrisome tendency in today's medical practicepl
dc.title.journalPolish Journal of Radiologypl
dc.typeJournalArticlepl
dspace.entity.typePublication
dc.abstract.enpl
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.contributor.authorpl
Sobiecka, Aleksandra
dc.contributor.authorpl
Bekiesińska-Figatowska, Monika
dc.contributor.authorpl
Rutkowska, Milena
dc.contributor.authorpl
Latos, Tomasz
dc.contributor.authorpl
Walecki, Jerzy
dc.date.accessioned
2017-05-09T07:34:20Z
dc.date.available
2017-05-09T07:34:20Z
dc.date.issuedpl
2016
dc.date.openaccess
0
dc.description.accesstime
w momencie opublikowania
dc.description.additionalpl
Bibliogr. s. 330
dc.description.physicalpl
325-330
dc.description.version
ostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.description.volumepl
81
dc.identifier.doipl
10.12659/PJR.896847
dc.identifier.eissnpl
1899-0967
dc.identifier.issnpl
1733-134X
dc.identifier.uri
http://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/40195
dc.languagepl
eng
dc.language.containerpl
eng
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.enpl
magnetic resonance imaging
dc.subject.enpl
referral and consultation
dc.subject.enpl
tomography
dc.subject.enpl
spiral computed
dc.subtypepl
Article
dc.titlepl
Clinically unjustified diagnostic imaging : a worrisome tendency in today's medical practice
dc.title.journalpl
Polish Journal of Radiology
dc.typepl
JournalArticle
dspace.entity.type
Publication
Affiliations

* 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
Ashburn
1
San Jose
1
Downloads
sobiecka_bekiesinska-figatowska_rutkowska_latos_walecki_clinically_unjustified_diagnostic_imaging_2016.pdf
28