F M Solivetti1, A Guerrisi1, N Salducca2, F Desiderio1, D Graceffa3, G Capodieci4, P Romeo5, I Sperduti6, S Canitano7,8. 1. Radiologia e Diagnostica per Immagini, I.R.C.C.S-Istituto Dermosifilopatico di Santa Maria e San Gallicano, I.F.O., Via Elio Chianesi 53, Rome, Italy. 2. Ortopedia, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute - Roma, Via Elio Chianesi 53, Rome, Italy. 3. Reumatologia, I.R.C.C.S-Istituto Dermosifilopatico di Santa Maria e San Gallicano, I.F.O., Via Elio Chianesi 53, Rome, Italy. 4. Dipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche, ASP di Siracusa, C.so Gelone 17, Syracusa, Italy. 5. Unità Operativa Diagnostica per Immagini, ASP di Messina, Via La farina 263/n, Messina, Italy. 6. Direzione Scientifica, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute - Roma, Via Elio Chianesi 53, Rome, Italy. 7. Radiologia e Diagnostica per Immagini, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute - Roma, Via Elio Chianesi 53, Rome, Italy. canitano@ifo.it. 8. , Viale Mazzini 144, 00195, Rome, Italy. canitano@ifo.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many studies show that a large portion of medical prescriptions for diagnostic examinations may be not useful for patient's management or unnecessary. Rapid technological advancement has made it possible for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to be increasingly used all over the world, particularly for musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of the knee MRI prescriptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of experts found standard clinical practice guidelines in the management of knee disorders. Secondly, the finalized set of guidelines chosen was compared with the data of 400 patients who underwent previous knee MRIs, which were then reported in a specific questionnaire prepared by the authors. The rate of appropriateness of knee MRI prescriptions was then calculated. RESULTS: Almost 21% of prescriptions were totally inappropriate, 18.8% were uncertain, and 60.2% could be considered totally appropriate. The most frequent prescription indication was for meniscal disorders that account for 26.8% of the total indications. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that approximately 40% of the total prescriptions were totally inappropriate or uncertain and that most of these were made by general practitioners. In light of these results, the economic impact of inappropriate prescriptions on the Italian healthcare system has to be seriously considered.
OBJECTIVES: Many studies show that a large portion of medical prescriptions for diagnostic examinations may be not useful for patient's management or unnecessary. Rapid technological advancement has made it possible for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to be increasingly used all over the world, particularly for musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of the knee MRI prescriptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of experts found standard clinical practice guidelines in the management of knee disorders. Secondly, the finalized set of guidelines chosen was compared with the data of 400 patients who underwent previous knee MRIs, which were then reported in a specific questionnaire prepared by the authors. The rate of appropriateness of knee MRI prescriptions was then calculated. RESULTS: Almost 21% of prescriptions were totally inappropriate, 18.8% were uncertain, and 60.2% could be considered totally appropriate. The most frequent prescription indication was for meniscal disorders that account for 26.8% of the total indications. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that approximately 40% of the total prescriptions were totally inappropriate or uncertain and that most of these were made by general practitioners. In light of these results, the economic impact of inappropriate prescriptions on the Italian healthcare system has to be seriously considered.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Nina L Marshall; Muirne Spooner; P Leo Galvin; Joanna P Ti; N Gerald McElvaney; Michael J Lee Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Hossein Ebrahimipour; Seyedeh Zahra Mirfeizi; Ali Vafaee Najar; Amir Reza Kachooei; Amir Shahriar Ariamanesh; Reza Ganji; Habibollah Esmaeeli; Hedayat Salari; Marjan Vejdani Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2014-03-15
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Matteo Quarenghi; Alfonso Fausto; Alberto Aliprandi; Maria Teresa Cuppone Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Francesco Giovagnorio; Matteo Olive; Alice Casinelli; Elena Maggini; Cristina Presicci; Celijeta Tominaj; Paolo Ricci Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Antonio Barile; Alice La Marra; Francesco Arrigoni; Silvia Mariani; Luigi Zugaro; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Alfonso Reginelli; Marcello Zappia; Luca Brunese; Ejona Duka; Giampaolo Carrafiello; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Robert Karpiński; Przemysław Krakowski; Józef Jonak; Anna Machrowska; Marcin Maciejewski; Adam Nogalski Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-05-15 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Robert Karpiński; Przemysław Krakowski; Józef Jonak; Anna Machrowska; Marcin Maciejewski; Adam Nogalski Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 3.576