Literature DB >> 20069736

Evidence-based radiology: why and how?

Francesco Sardanelli1, Myriam G Hunink, Fiona J Gilbert, Giovanni Di Leo, Gabriel P Krestin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in relation to radiology and to define a policy for adoption of this principle in the European radiological community.
RESULTS: Starting from Sackett's definition of EBM we illustrate the top-down and bottom-up approaches to EBM as well as EBM's limitations. Delayed diffusion and peculiar features of evidence-based radiology (EBR) are defined with emphasis on the need to shift from the demonstration of the increasing ability to see more and better, to the demonstration of a significant change in treatment planning or, at best, of a significant gain in patient outcome. The "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle is thought as a dimension of EBR while EBR is proposed as part of the core curriculum of radiology residency. Moreover, we describe the process of health technology assessment in radiology with reference to the six-level scale of hierarchy of studies on diagnostic tests, the main sources of bias in studies on diagnostic performance, and levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Oxford, UK) as well as the approach proposed by the GRADE working group. Problems and opportunities offered by evidence-based guidelines in radiology are considered. Finally, we suggest nine points to be actioned by the ESR in order to promote EBR.
CONCLUSION: Radiology will benefit greatly from the improvement in practice that will result from adopting this more rigorous approach to all aspects of our work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20069736     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1574-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  74 in total

Review 1.  Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement.

Authors:  M D Cabana; C S Rand; N R Powe; A W Wu; M H Wilson; P A Abboud; H R Rubin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Evidence-based approach to use of MR imaging in acute spinal trauma.

Authors:  Wendy A Cohen; Anthony P Giauque; Danial K Hallam; Ken F Linnau; F A Mann
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 3.  Evidence-based radiology: review and dissemination.

Authors:  L Santiago Medina; C Craig Blackmore
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  When is the right time to conduct a clinical trial of a diagnostic imaging technology?

Authors:  Bruce J Hillman; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; A Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Jan Brozek; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Regina Kunz; Jonathan Craig; Victor M Montori; Patrick Bossuyt; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-17

6.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.

Authors:  M C Reid; M S Lachs; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995 Aug 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Eugene W. Caldwell Lecture. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it.

Authors:  J R Thornbury
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Computerized cranial tomography. Effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans.

Authors:  H V Fineberg; R Bauman; M Sosman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1977-07-18       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Evidence-based radiology: how to quickly assess the validity and strength of publications in the diagnostic radiology literature.

Authors:  Jonathan D Dodd; Peter M MacEneaney; Dermot E Malone
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-11-11       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  How to synthesize evidence for imaging guidelines.

Authors:  L Matowe; F J Gilbert
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  19 in total

1.  Design-related bias in estimates of accuracy when comparing imaging tests: examples from breast imaging research.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The abstract format of original articles: differences between imaging and non-imaging journals.

Authors:  Luca Maria Sconfienza; Giovanni Di Leo; Claudia Muzzupappa; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Clinical trials in radiology and data sharing: results from a survey of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) research committee.

Authors:  Maria Bosserdt; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Methodological quality of diagnostic accuracy studies on non-invasive coronary CT angiography: influence of QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies included in systematic reviews) items on sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  Sabine Schueler; Stefan Walther; Georg M Schuetz; Peter Schlattmann; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Challenges in estimating reproducibility of imaging modalities.

Authors:  Giovanni Di Leo
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2011-09-26

6.  Should the automatic exposure control system of CT be disabled when scanning patients with endoaortic stents or mechanical heart valves? A phantom study.

Authors:  Giovanni Di Leo; Chiara Spadavecchia; Moreno Zanardo; Francesco Secchi; Ivan Veronese; Marie Claire Cantone; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with a recent, normal exercise test.

Authors:  Ann Bovin; Ib C Klausen; Lars J Petersen
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2013-03-26

8.  Assessment of image quality and low-contrast detectability in abdominal CT of obese patients: comparison of a novel integrated circuit with a conventional discrete circuit detector at different tube voltages.

Authors:  A Euler; T Heye; M Kekelidze; G Bongartz; Z Szucs-Farkas; C Sommer; B Schmidt; Sebastian T Schindera
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Gouty arthritis: the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of dual-energy CT.

Authors:  Tim Finkenstaedt; Andrei Manoliou; Martin Toniolo; Kai Higashigaito; Gustav Andreisek; Roman Guggenberger; Beat Michel; Hatem Alkadhi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Advanced neuroimaging in the clinic: critical appraisal of the evidence base.

Authors:  Adam Z Fink; Lisa B Mogil; Michael L Lipton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.