Cargando…

Clinically Unjustified Diagnostic Imaging – a Worrisome Tendency in Today’s Medical Practice

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/METHODS: Three radiologists a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sobiecka, Aleksandra, Bekiesińska-Figatowska, Monika, Rutkowska, Milena, Latos, Tomasz, Walecki, Jerzy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27471577
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/PJR.896847
_version_ 1782443020113674240
author Sobiecka, Aleksandra
Bekiesińska-Figatowska, Monika
Rutkowska, Milena
Latos, Tomasz
Walecki, Jerzy
author_facet Sobiecka, Aleksandra
Bekiesińska-Figatowska, Monika
Rutkowska, Milena
Latos, Tomasz
Walecki, Jerzy
author_sort Sobiecka, Aleksandra
collection PubMed
description 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/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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4946391
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher International Scientific Literature, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49463912016-07-28 Clinically Unjustified Diagnostic Imaging – a Worrisome Tendency in Today’s Medical Practice Sobiecka, Aleksandra Bekiesińska-Figatowska, Monika Rutkowska, Milena Latos, Tomasz Walecki, Jerzy Pol J Radiol Original Article 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/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. International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2016-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4946391/ /pubmed/27471577 http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/PJR.896847 Text en © Pol J Radiol, 2016 This is an open access article. Unrestricted non-commercial use is permitted provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sobiecka, Aleksandra
Bekiesińska-Figatowska, Monika
Rutkowska, Milena
Latos, Tomasz
Walecki, Jerzy
Clinically Unjustified Diagnostic Imaging – a Worrisome Tendency in Today’s Medical Practice
title Clinically Unjustified Diagnostic Imaging – a Worrisome Tendency in Today’s Medical Practice
title_full Clinically Unjustified Diagnostic Imaging – a Worrisome Tendency in Today’s Medical Practice
title_fullStr Clinically Unjustified Diagnostic Imaging – a Worrisome Tendency in Today’s Medical Practice
title_full_unstemmed Clinically Unjustified Diagnostic Imaging – a Worrisome Tendency in Today’s Medical Practice
title_short Clinically Unjustified Diagnostic Imaging – a Worrisome Tendency in Today’s Medical Practice
title_sort clinically unjustified diagnostic imaging – a worrisome tendency in today’s medical practice
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4946391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27471577
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/PJR.896847
work_keys_str_mv AT sobieckaaleksandra clinicallyunjustifieddiagnosticimagingaworrisometendencyintodaysmedicalpractice
AT bekiesinskafigatowskamonika clinicallyunjustifieddiagnosticimagingaworrisometendencyintodaysmedicalpractice
AT rutkowskamilena clinicallyunjustifieddiagnosticimagingaworrisometendencyintodaysmedicalpractice
AT latostomasz clinicallyunjustifieddiagnosticimagingaworrisometendencyintodaysmedicalpractice
AT waleckijerzy clinicallyunjustifieddiagnosticimagingaworrisometendencyintodaysmedicalpractice