No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundRecent meta-analysis has demonstrated no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy among different imaging techniques (US, MRI and CT) in the evaluation of Crohn’s disease (CD). High-resolution bowel ultrasound has emerged as an alternative imaging technique for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with CD, being as accurate as CT and MR for detecting intramural and extramural extension of the disease. B-Mode US can evaluate the localization and length of the affected intestinal segments and allow identification of transmural complications, stenosis and intestinal obstruction. Doppler techniques are tools that visualize and quantify bowel vascularization. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a new technique that involves IV administration of an ultrasound contrast agent with real-time examination, providing an accurate depiction of the bowel wall microvascularization and the perienteric tissues. The introduction of imaging quantification techniques enables an objective quantitative measurement of the enhancement.Method and resultsThe article reviews the technique, sonographic findings, advantages and limitations, and clinical applications of contrast-enhanced US in the evaluation of Cohn’s disease. Current CEUS applications in CD are: CD activity assessment, evaluation of inflammatory masses, distinguishing phlegmons from abscesses, characterization of stenosis by differentiating fibrosis from inflammation, monitoring the efficacy of drug treatments and improving the detection of disease recurrence.ConclusionCEUS is an emerging technique that is part of the entire sonographic evaluation, with a role in the diagnosis and follow-up of CD, thus improving therapy planning and monitoring of the efficacy of treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13244-011-0124-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aim of this study was to review recent literature in order to provide updated values of the typical effective doses associated with the top 20 imaging tests for adults and children and for the most widely used set of weights (ICRP60) as well as for the most recent one (ICRP103). We performed a systematic research on radiation dosimetry in radiology published from 2007 onwards through the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library Plus databases. We also included studies backed by scientific or governmental organizations. Other variables included: year and type of study (survey or descriptive), country, method and sample used for the measurement. Mean effective dose, minimum, maximum and standard deviation were calculated. We compared our results with previous evidence and with data from DDM2. We included 27 articles and 5 web references in the study. A total of 378 values from the 20 procedures included were obtained, 280 (74%) using ICRP60 and 98 (26%) using ICRP103. Effective doses for CT procedures in children were very similar to those for adults, with the exception of CT Trunk, but fluoroscopy procedures had consistently lower dose. There were differences between the current data with either ICRP60 or ICRP103, and the previous published data. In conclusion, we provided the best available evidence from literature to evaluate the effective dose received by each patient for the most typical examinations. According to the recommendations from the Report 154 and from the European Council Directive, these results could also be useful to estimate the range of average exposures to the population.

ObjectivesTo determine the appropriateness of medical imaging examinations involving radiation and to estimate the effective radiation dose and costs associated.DesignCross-sectional retrospective study.SettingTwo Spanish public tertiary hospitals.Participants2022 medical imaging tests were extracted from the radiology information system in February and March of 2014. MRI and ultrasound examinations were excluded.Primary and secondary outcome measuresFive outcomes were set independently by at least two researchers according to four guidelines: (1) appropriate; (2) inappropriate; (3) inappropriate due to repetition, if the timing to carry out next diagnostic tests was incorrect according to guidelines; (4) not adequately justified, if the referral form did not include enough clinical information to allow us to understand the patient’s clinical condition; and (5) not included in the guidelines, if the referral could not be matched to a clinical scenario described in the guidelines. We estimated the prevalence of the five categories according to relevant clinical and sociodemographic variables and the effective radiation dose and costs for each category.ResultsApproximately half of the imaging tests were deemed as appropriate (967, 47.8%) while one-third (634, 31.4%) were considered inappropriate. 19.6% of the effective dose and 25.2% of the cost were associated with inappropriate tests. Women were less likely than men to have an imaging test classified as appropriate (adjusted OR 0.70,95% CI 0.57 to 0.86). Imaging tests requested by general practitioners were less likely to be considered appropriate than those requested by central services (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93). Mammography and CT were more likely to be appropriate than conventional X-rays.ConclusionThere was a significant frequency of inappropriateness, which resulted in a high percentage of associated effective radiation dose. Percentage of inappropriateness depends on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics such as sex, age, referral physician and medical imaging test.