Appropriateness of pediatric CT utilization in clinical practice

P. Trinavarat, N. Pisuchpen, Sasitorn Petcharunpaisan, D. Sosothikul, J. Deerojanawong, M. Veeravigrom, Jiraporn Amornfa, P. Vejchapipat, M. Riccabona
{"title":"Appropriateness of pediatric CT utilization in clinical practice","authors":"P. Trinavarat, N. Pisuchpen, Sasitorn Petcharunpaisan, D. Sosothikul, J. Deerojanawong, M. Veeravigrom, Jiraporn Amornfa, P. Vejchapipat, M. Riccabona","doi":"10.46475/ASEANJR.2019.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Justification of imaging investigations is important, particularly in pediatrics underwent investigation using a relatively higher radiation such as CT, due to the higher radiation sensitivity of children. \nObjective: To assess the difference of viewpoints between pediatric physicians and pediatric radiologists on the appropriateness of pediatric CT utilization in a tertiary-care university hospital with limited MR capacity. \nMethods: Pediatric medical records of head CT, chest CT, and abdominal CT were retrospectively reviewed in consecutive date of the examination until having 100 head CTs and 100 body CTs with complete clinical and imaging information. The physicians and the radiologists were asked to suggest the imaging modality of choice for each patient according to the given data, regardless of the hospital’s limitation. If the suggested modality of choice was not CT, the CT request would be considered as “inappropriate”. They additionally scored the CT appropriateness, firstly using individual judgement, and secondly using the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Both scoring methods used the same rating scale from 1 to 9; score 1-3 was considered “inappropriate”. \nResults: From the viewpoint of the physicians and radiologists, the number of inappropriate CT request was 20% and 54% according to “the modality of choice”, 2.5% and 17% according to “individual judgement”, 12% and 22% according to the “ACR Appropriateness Criteria”. The main difference was not from no indication for imaging but from the selected modality of imaging. The radiologists suggested 52% of head CTs and 64% of abdominal CTs could have been replaced by MRI if available. \nConclusion: There are ten-percent disagreement on appropriateness of pediatric CT request between physicians and the radiologists when using the same guidelines and considering the hospital limitation.","PeriodicalId":180936,"journal":{"name":"The ASEAN Journal of Radiology","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The ASEAN Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46475/ASEANJR.2019.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Justification of imaging investigations is important, particularly in pediatrics underwent investigation using a relatively higher radiation such as CT, due to the higher radiation sensitivity of children. Objective: To assess the difference of viewpoints between pediatric physicians and pediatric radiologists on the appropriateness of pediatric CT utilization in a tertiary-care university hospital with limited MR capacity. Methods: Pediatric medical records of head CT, chest CT, and abdominal CT were retrospectively reviewed in consecutive date of the examination until having 100 head CTs and 100 body CTs with complete clinical and imaging information. The physicians and the radiologists were asked to suggest the imaging modality of choice for each patient according to the given data, regardless of the hospital’s limitation. If the suggested modality of choice was not CT, the CT request would be considered as “inappropriate”. They additionally scored the CT appropriateness, firstly using individual judgement, and secondly using the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Both scoring methods used the same rating scale from 1 to 9; score 1-3 was considered “inappropriate”. Results: From the viewpoint of the physicians and radiologists, the number of inappropriate CT request was 20% and 54% according to “the modality of choice”, 2.5% and 17% according to “individual judgement”, 12% and 22% according to the “ACR Appropriateness Criteria”. The main difference was not from no indication for imaging but from the selected modality of imaging. The radiologists suggested 52% of head CTs and 64% of abdominal CTs could have been replaced by MRI if available. Conclusion: There are ten-percent disagreement on appropriateness of pediatric CT request between physicians and the radiologists when using the same guidelines and considering the hospital limitation.
临床应用儿科CT的适宜性
背景:影像学检查的合理性是很重要的,特别是在使用相对较高的辐射(如CT)进行检查的儿科,因为儿童的辐射敏感性较高。目的:评价在磁共振能力有限的三级大学医院,儿科医师和儿科放射科医师对儿童CT应用适宜性的看法差异。方法:回顾性分析患儿头部CT、胸部CT和腹部CT连续检查日期的病历,直至获得100张头部CT和100张全身CT,临床和影像学资料完整。医生和放射科医生被要求根据给定的数据为每位患者建议选择的成像方式,而不考虑医院的限制。如果建议的选择方式不是CT,则CT请求将被认为是“不适当的”。他们还对CT适当性进行了评分,首先使用个人判断,其次使用ACR适当性标准。两种评分方法使用相同的评分量表,从1到9;1-3分被认为“不合适”。结果:从内科医生和放射科医生的角度来看,根据“选择方式”,不适当CT请求的比例分别为20%和54%,根据“个人判断”,比例分别为2.5%和17%,根据“ACR适当标准”,比例分别为12%和22%。主要差异不在于无影像学指征,而在于影像学方式的选择。放射科医生建议,如果可以的话,52%的头部ct和64%的腹部ct可以用MRI代替。结论:医生和放射科医生在使用相同的指南和考虑医院限制的情况下,对儿童CT请求的适当性存在10%的分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信