Literature DB >> 2506965

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in suspected lesions in the posterior cranial fossa.

G M Teasdale1, D M Hadley, A Lawrence, I Bone, H Burton, R Grant, B Condon, P Macpherson, J Rowan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in investigating patients suspected of having a lesion in the posterior cranial fossa.
DESIGN: Randomised allocation of newly referred patients to undergo either computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging; the alternative investigation was performed subsequently only in response to a request from the referring doctor.
SETTING: A regional neuroscience centre serving 2.7 million. PATIENTS: 1020 Patients recruited between April 1986 and December 1987, all suspected by neurologists, neurosurgeons, or other specialists of having a lesion in the posterior fossa and referred for neuroradiology. The groups allocated to undergo computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging were well matched in distributions of age, sex, specialty of referring doctor, investigation as an inpatient or an outpatient, suspected site of lesion, and presumed disease process; the referring doctor's confidence in the initial clinical diagnosis was also similar.
INTERVENTIONS: After the patients had been imaged by either computed tomography or magnetic resonance (using a resistive magnet of 0.15 T) doctors were given the radiologist's report and a form asking if they considered that imaging with the alternative technique was necessary and, if so, why; it also asked for their current diagnoses and their confidence in them. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of requests for the alternative method of investigation. Assessment of characteristics of patients for whom further imaging was requested and lesions that were suspected initially and how the results of the second imaging affected clinicians' and radiologists' opinions.
RESULTS: Ninety three of the 501 patients who initially underwent computed tomography were referred subsequently for magnetic resonance imaging whereas only 28 of the 493 patients who initially underwent magnetic resonance imaging were referred subsequently for computed tomography. Over the study the number of patients referred for magnetic resonance imaging after computed tomography increased but requests for computed tomography after magnetic resonance imaging decreased. The reason that clinicians gave most commonly for requesting further imaging by magnetic resonance was that the results of the initial computed tomography failed to exclude their suspected diagnosis (64 patients). This was less common in patients investigated initially by magnetic resonance imaging (eight patients). Management of 28 patients (6%) imaged initially with computed tomography and 12 patients (2%) imaged initially with magnetic resonance was changed on the basis of the results of the alternative imaging.
CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging provided doctors with the information required to manage patients suspected of having a lesion in the posterior fossa more commonly than computed tomography, but computed tomography alone was satisfactory in 80% of cases...

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2506965      PMCID: PMC1837226          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.299.6695.349

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  18 in total

1.  Obstacles to acceptance of clinical decision analysis.

Authors:  J I Balla; A S Elstein; C Christensen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-03-04

2.  Experiences at the new magnetic resonance imaging centre at Bristol.

Authors:  J L Thomson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  L S Cooper; T C Chalmers; M McCally; J Berrier; H S Sacks
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988-06-10       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Imaging strategies for MR of the spine.

Authors:  R A Hyman; M T Gorey
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  D F Ransohoff; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-10-26       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Magnetic resonance of the brain: the optimal screening technique.

Authors:  M Brant-Zawadzki; D Norman; T H Newton; W M Kelly; B Kjos; C M Mills; W Dillon; D Sobel; L E Crooks
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Comparison of CT and MR in 400 patients with suspected disease of the brain and cervical spinal cord.

Authors:  W G Bradley; V Waluch; R A Yadley; R R Wycoff
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the posterior fossa: 50 cases.

Authors:  G M Bydder; R E Steiner; D J Thomas; J Marshall; D J Gilderdale; I R Young
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.350

9.  Assessment of clinical technologies. Importance for provision and use.

Authors:  B Jennett
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 10.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine.

Authors:  D M Hadley; G M Teasdale
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 4.849

View more
  7 in total

1.  MRI in the management of suspected cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  P F Statham; D M Hadley; P Macpherson; R A Johnston; I Bone; G M Teasdale
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.

Authors:  A Laupacis; D Feeny; A S Detsky; P X Tugwell
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Quality of life assessments in the evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  R Mackenzie; W Hollingworth; A K Dixon
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Does intracerebral haemorrhage mimic benign dizziness presentations? A population based study.

Authors:  Kevin A Kerber; James F Burke; Devin L Brown; William J Meurer; Melinda A Smith; Lynda D Lisabeth; Lewis B Morgenstern; Darin B Zahuranec
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 2.740

5.  Measuring changes in quality of life following magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: SF-36, EuroQol or Rosser index?

Authors:  W Hollingworth; R Mackenzie; C J Todd; A K Dixon
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  Use of perfusion imaging and other imaging techniques to assess risks/benefits of acute stroke interventions.

Authors:  Jason Tarpley; Dan Franc; Aaron P Tansy; David S Liebeskind
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 5.113

7.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the head and spine: effective for the clinician or the patient?

Authors:  A K Dixon; J P Southern; A Teale; C E Freer; L D Hall; A Williams; C Sims
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-01-12
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.