John B Harringa1, Rebecca L Bracken1, B Keegan Markhardt2, Timothy J Ziemlewicz2, Meghan Lubner2, Arthur Chiu1, Jen Birstler3, Perry J Pickhardt2, Scott B Reeder2, Michael D Repplinger4,5. 1. BerbeeWalsh Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA. 4. BerbeeWalsh Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA. mdrepplinger@wisc.edu. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA. mdrepplinger@wisc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) when evaluating for five common pelvic pathologies among women presenting to the emergency department (ED) with right lower quadrant abdominal pain. METHODS: This prospective, single-center study was conducted at an academic ED as a sub-analysis of a direct comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MR in the evaluation of appendicitis. Patients were eligible for participation in the parent study if they were at least 12 years old and had a CT performed for evaluation of possible appendicitis. In the current study, only female patients who also underwent pelvic US were included. Three radiologists independently interpreted each MR examination specifically for the presence of pelvic pathology, knowing that patients had initially undergone imaging evaluation for possible appendicitis. The determination of an independent expert panel of two radiologists and one emergency physician based on surgical pathology, comprehensive chart review, clinical information, and follow-up phone calls served as the reference standard. Test characteristics of MR, CT, and US were calculated based on this; the main outcome measure was the summary sensitivity and specificity of MR versus CT and US. RESULTS: Forty-one participants were included with a mean age of 27.6 ± 10.8 years. The MR consensus interpretation had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 57.1% (CI 38.8-75.5%) and 97.2% (CI 94.7-99.6%) respectively, for detecting any of the five pelvic pathologies. By comparison, CT exhibited sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% (CI 50.0-83.5%) and 98.3% (CI 96.4-100.0%) while it was 64.3% (CI 46.5-82.0%) and 97.7% (CI 95.6-99.9%) for US, respectively. No significant differences were identified when comparing these modalities. Overall, Fleiss' kappa interrater reliability value for MR interpretation was 0.75, corresponding to substantial agreement between the three readers. CONCLUSIONS: In women who might otherwise undergo multiple imaging tests to evaluate gastrointestinal versus pelvic pathologies, our data suggest that MR may be an acceptable first-line imaging test.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) when evaluating for five common pelvic pathologies among women presenting to the emergency department (ED) with right lower quadrant abdominal pain. METHODS: This prospective, single-center study was conducted at an academic ED as a sub-analysis of a direct comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MR in the evaluation of appendicitis. Patients were eligible for participation in the parent study if they were at least 12 years old and had a CT performed for evaluation of possible appendicitis. In the current study, only female patients who also underwent pelvic US were included. Three radiologists independently interpreted each MR examination specifically for the presence of pelvic pathology, knowing that patients had initially undergone imaging evaluation for possible appendicitis. The determination of an independent expert panel of two radiologists and one emergency physician based on surgical pathology, comprehensive chart review, clinical information, and follow-up phone calls served as the reference standard. Test characteristics of MR, CT, and US were calculated based on this; the main outcome measure was the summary sensitivity and specificity of MR versus CT and US. RESULTS: Forty-one participants were included with a mean age of 27.6 ± 10.8 years. The MR consensus interpretation had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 57.1% (CI 38.8-75.5%) and 97.2% (CI 94.7-99.6%) respectively, for detecting any of the five pelvic pathologies. By comparison, CT exhibited sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% (CI 50.0-83.5%) and 98.3% (CI 96.4-100.0%) while it was 64.3% (CI 46.5-82.0%) and 97.7% (CI 95.6-99.9%) for US, respectively. No significant differences were identified when comparing these modalities. Overall, Fleiss' kappa interrater reliability value for MR interpretation was 0.75, corresponding to substantial agreement between the three readers. CONCLUSIONS: In women who might otherwise undergo multiple imaging tests to evaluate gastrointestinal versus pelvic pathologies, our data suggest that MR may be an acceptable first-line imaging test.
Authors: Martin P Smith; Douglas S Katz; Tasneem Lalani; Laura R Carucci; Brooks D Cash; David H Kim; Robert J Piorkowski; William C Small; Stephanie E Spottswood; Mark Tulchinsky; Vahid Yaghmai; Judy Yee; Max P Rosen Journal: Ultrasound Q Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.657
Authors: Donald Le Ly; Korosh Khalili; Sara Gray; Mostafa Atri; Anthony Hanbidge; Seng Thipphavong Journal: Ultrasound Q Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.657
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Mark A Perazella; Jerry Yee; Jonathan R Dillman; Derek Fine; Robert J McDonald; Roger A Rodby; Carolyn L Wang; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Y Liza Kearl; Ilene Claudius; Sol Behar; John Cooper; Ryan Dollbaum; Madhu Hardasmalani; Kevin Hardiman; Emily Rose; Genevieve Santillanes; Carl Berdahl Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Priyadarshani R Bhosale; Marcia C Javitt; Mostafa Atri; Robert D Harris; Stella K Kang; Benjamin J Meyer; Pari V Pandharipande; Caroline Reinhold; Gloria M Salazar; Thomas D Shipp; Lynn Simpson; Betsy L Sussman; Jennifer Uyeda; Darci J Wall; Carolyn M Zelop; Phyllis Glanc Journal: Ultrasound Q Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 1.657