Clinical radiology: Going an extra mile for patient care

Abstract

Context:Clinical details help radiologists report accurately. However, the clinical aspect has taken a backseat among radiologists, who are overdependent on referral notes. This leads to inaccurate assessment, financial burden, and loss of man hours.Aims:To re-emphasize the benefits of detailed clinical evaluation and real-time monitoring of imaging in interpreting images.Settings and Design:Prospective study.Materials and Methods:A study was done in the Department of Radiodiagnosis for 10 days, including all referred patients above 18 years of age. Detailed history taking and examination was done by radiologists prior to imaging. Any additional significant clinical detail was endorsed on the referral slips. Appropriate imaging modality under given circumstances was carried out. Imaging was studied by the radiologists, near simultaneously with the acquisition. Any additional imaging needed was performed on the same day. Comprehensive reports with specific outputs were provided. Wherever apt, imaging-guided management options were offered to the patients.Results:During the study, 1024 patients with mean age of 46.3 years underwent various types of imaging, including radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound scans, and fluoroscopic procedures. Additional clinical details were endorsed in referral slips in 32.4% patients, 53% of which helped in interpreting images appropriately. Primary imaging modality was changed in 3% patients. Additional imaging was done in 10.9% patients. 3.6% of patients underwent imaging-guided procedures.Conclusion:Detailed history taking and examination help radiologists in deciding appropriate imaging and better interpretation of images. This will also reduce the number of visits to the hospital and expenditure on part of patients.

Diagnostic accuracy in axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic evaluation of the role of clinical information in the interpretation of sacroiliac joint imaging

“…The majority of radiologists saw a clear advantage in having CI as a background of imaging evaluation. 24 This was similar for the diagnostic accuracy of imaging in axSpA by radiologists. 17 22 The authors stressed that findings such as BME and structural lesions visualised on MRI should always be interpreted in light of the clinical context since there are several differential diagnoses to be considered such as osteitis condensans, 25 fractures and infectious sacroiliitis.…”