Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Die Folgen des Klimwandels haben einen direkten Einfluss auf die Primärversorgung in Deutschland: Hitzeschutz insbesondere bei älteren Patienten, die Zunahme von Infektionen und die Verlängerung der Allergiesesaison spielen medizinisch eine bedeutsame Rolle. Aber auch in der Prävention und der Aufklärung der Patienten kommt den Hausärztinnen und -ärzten eine besondere Rolle zu. Direkt aus der Praxis berichtet im Live-Webinar am 13. Mai von 18 bis 19 Uhr unser Experte Dr. med. Robin Maitra.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
European Radiology
Erschienen in: European Radiology 1/2010

01.01.2010 | Health Economy

Evidence-based radiology: why and how?

verfasst von: Francesco Sardanelli, Myriam G. Hunink, Fiona J. Gilbert, Giovanni Di Leo, Gabriel P. Krestin

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To provide an overview of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in relation to radiology and to define a policy for adoption of this principle in the European radiological community.

Results

Starting from Sackett’s definition of EBM we illustrate the top-down and bottom-up approaches to EBM as well as EBM’s limitations. Delayed diffusion and peculiar features of evidence-based radiology (EBR) are defined with emphasis on the need to shift from the demonstration of the increasing ability to see more and better, to the demonstration of a significant change in treatment planning or, at best, of a significant gain in patient outcome. The “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle is thought as a dimension of EBR while EBR is proposed as part of the core curriculum of radiology residency. Moreover, we describe the process of health technology assessment in radiology with reference to the six-level scale of hierarchy of studies on diagnostic tests, the main sources of bias in studies on diagnostic performance, and levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Oxford, UK) as well as the approach proposed by the GRADE working group. Problems and opportunities offered by evidence-based guidelines in radiology are considered. Finally, we suggest nine points to be actioned by the ESR in order to promote EBR.

Conclusion

Radiology will benefit greatly from the improvement in practice that will result from adopting this more rigorous approach to all aspects of our work.
Literatur
1.
Malone DE (2007) Evidence-based practice in radiology: an introduction to the series. Radiology 242:12–14CrossRefPubMed
2.
Evidence-Based Radiology Working Group (2001) Evidence-based radiology: a new approach to the practice of radiology. Radiology 220:566–575CrossRef
3.
Greenhalgh T (2006) How to read a paper. The basics of evidence-based medicine, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp ix–xii
4.
Greenhalgh T (2006) How to read a paper. The basics of evidence-based medicine, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–3
5.
6.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312:71–72PubMed
7.
Hunink MGM, Glasziou PP, Siegel JE, Weeks JC, Pliskin JS, Elstein AS, Weinstein MC (2001) Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
8.
Malone DE, Staunton M (2007) Evidence-based practice in radiology: step 5 (evaluate)—caveats and common questions. Radiology 243:319–328CrossRefPubMed
9.
Dodd JD (2007) Evidence-based practice in radiology: steps 3 and 4—appraise and apply diagnostic radiology literature. Radiology 242:342–354CrossRefPubMed
10.
van Beek EJ, Malone DE (2007) Evidence-based practice in radiology education: why and how should we teach it? Radiology 243:633–640CrossRefPubMed
11.
Hollingworth W, Jarvik JG (2007) Technology assessment in radiology: putting the evidence in evidence-based radiology. Radiology 244:31–38CrossRefPubMed
12.
Trinder L (2000) A critical appraisal of evidence-based practice. In: Trinder L, Reynolds S (eds) Evidence-based practice: a critical appraisal. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 212–214
13.
Tonelli MR (1998) The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine. Acad Med 73:1234–1240CrossRefPubMed
14.
Raymond J, Trop I (2007) The practice of ethics in the era of evidence-based radiology. Radiology 244:643–649CrossRefPubMed
15.
Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999) Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318:527–530PubMed
16.
Acheson L, Mitchell L (1993) The routine antenatal diagnostic imaging with ultrasound study. The challenge to practice evidence-based obstetrics. Arch Fam Med 2:1229–1231CrossRefPubMed
17.
No authors listed (1997) Routine ultrasound imaging in pregnancy: how evidence-based are the guidelines? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 13:475–477
18.
No authors listed (1997) Reports from the British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment (BCOHTA). Routine ultrasound imaging in pregnancy: how evidence-based are the guidelines? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 13:633–637
19.
20.
Mukerjee A (1999) Towards evidence based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Magnetic resonance imaging in acute knee haemarthrosis. J Accid Emerg Med 16:216–217PubMed
21.
Liedberg J, Panmekiate S, Petersson A, Rohlin M (1996) Evidence-based evaluation of three imaging methods for the temporomandibular disc. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 25:234–241PubMed
22.
Taïeb S, Vennin P (2001) Evidence-based medicine: towards evidence-based radiology. J Radiol 82:887–890PubMed
23.
Arrivé L, Tubiana JM (2002) “Evidence-based” radiology. J Radiol 83:661PubMed
24.
Bui AA, Taira RK, Dionisio JD et al (2002) Evidence-based radiology: requirements for electronic access. Acad Radiol 9:662–669CrossRefPubMed
25.
Guillerman RP, Brody AS, Kraus SJ (2002) Evidence-based guidelines for pediatric imaging: the example of the child with possible appendicitis. Pediatr Ann 31:629–640PubMed
26.
Kainberger F, Czembirek H, Frühwald F, Pokieser P, Imhof H (2002) Guidelines and algorithms: strategies for standardization of referral criteria in diagnostic radiology. Eur Radiol 12:673–679PubMed
27.
Bennett JD (2003) Evidence-based radiology problems. Covered stent treatment of an axillary artery pseudoaneurysm: June 2003–June 2004. Can Assoc Radiol J 54:140–143PubMed
28.
Blackmore CC (2003) Evidence-based imaging evaluation of the cervical spine in trauma. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 13:283–291CrossRefPubMed
29.
Cohen WA, Giauque AP, Hallam DK, Linnau KF, Mann FA (2003) Evidence-based approach to use of MR imaging in acute spinal trauma. Eur J Radiol 48:49–60CrossRefPubMed
30.
Goergen SK, Fong C, Dalziel K, Fennessy G (2003) Development of an evidence-based guideline for imaging in cervical spine trauma. Australas Radiol 47:240–246CrossRefPubMed
31.
Medina LS, Aguirre E, Zurakowski D (2003) Introduction to evidence-based imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 13:157–165CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Dodd JD, MacEneaney PM, Malone DE (2004) Evidence-based radiology: how to quickly assess the validity and strength of publications in the diagnostic radiology literature. Eur Radiol 14:915–922CrossRefPubMed
34.
Erden A (2004) Evidence based radiology. Tani Girisim Radyol 10:89–91PubMed
35.
Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillan MGC (2004) Low back pain: influence of early MR imaging or CT on treatment and outcome—multicenter randomized trial. Radiology 231:343–351CrossRefPubMed
36.
Matowe L, Gilbert FJ (2004) How to synthesize evidence for imaging guidelines. Clin Radiol 59:63–68CrossRefPubMed
37.
Giovagnoni A, Ottaviani L, Mensà A et al (2005) Evidence based medicine (EBM) and evidence based radiology (EBR) in the follow-up of the patients after surgery for lung and colon-rectal carcinoma. Radiol Med 109:345–357PubMed
38.
Medina LS, Blackmore CC (2006) Evidence-based imaging, 1st edn. Springer, New York
39.
Medina LS, Blackmore CC (2007) Evidence-based radiology: review and dissemination. Radiology 244:331–336CrossRefPubMed
40.
Royal College of Radiologists Working Party (1998) Making the best use of a department of clinical radiology: guidelines for doctors, 4th edn. The Royal College of Radiologists, London
41.
No authors listed (2004) Proceedings of the second ALARA conference. February 28, 2004. Houston, Texas, USA. Pediatr Radiol 34(Suppl 3):S162–S246
42.
Prasad KN, Cole WC, Haase GM (2004) Radiation protection in humans: extending the concept of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) from dose to biological damage. Br J Radiol 77:97–99CrossRefPubMed
43.
Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W (2007) Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:900–909CrossRefPubMed
44.
45.
Barr HJ, Ohlhaber T, Finder C (2006) Focusing in on dose reduction: the FDA perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1716–1717CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
White SJ, Ashby D, Brown PJ (2000) An introduction to statistical methods for health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 4(i–iv):1–59
48.
Hillman BJ, Gatsonis CA (2008) When is the right time to conduct a clinical trial of a diagnostic imaging technology? Radiology 248:12–15CrossRefPubMed
49.
Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M (1977) Computerized cranial tomography. Effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA 238:224–227CrossRefPubMed
50.
Fryback DG, Thornbury JR (1991) The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 11:88–94CrossRefPubMed
51.
Thornbury JR (1994) Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162:1–8PubMed
52.
Mackenzie R, Dixon AK (1995) Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework. Clin Radiol 50:513–518CrossRefPubMed
53.
Thornbury JR (1999) Intermediate outcomes: diagnostic and therapeutic impact. Acad Radiol 6(suppl 1):S58–S65CrossRefPubMed
54.
Sunshine JH, Applegate KE (2004) Technology assessment for radiologists. Radiology 230:309–314CrossRefPubMed
55.
Brealey SD, DAMASK (Direct Access to Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Assessment for Suspect Knees) Trial Team (2007) Influence of magnetic resonance of the knee on GPs’ decisions: a randomised trial. Br J Gen Pract 57:622–629PubMed
56.
Oei EH, Nikken JJ, Ginai AZ, From the Program for the Assessment of Radiological Technology (ART Program) et al (2009) Costs and effectiveness of a brief MRI examination of patients with acute knee injury. Eur Radiol 19(2):409–418CrossRefPubMed
57.
Ouwendijk R, de Vries M, Stijnen T, from the Program for the Assessment of Radiological Technology et al (2008) Multicenter randomized controlled trial of the costs and effects of noninvasive diagnostic imaging in patients with peripheral arterial disease: the DIPAD trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1349–1357CrossRefPubMed
58.
Kuhl CK, Träber F, Schild HH (2008) Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. Part I. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology 246:675–696CrossRefPubMed
59.
Jordan HS, Bert RB, Chew P, Kupelnick B, Lau J (2003) Magnetic resonance spectroscopy for brain tumors. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, p 109
60.
Möller-Hartmann W, Herminghaus S, Krings T et al (2002) Clinical application of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in the diagnosis of intracranial mass lesions. Neuroradiology 44:371–381CrossRefPubMed
61.
Soares HP, Kumar A, Daniels S et al (2005) Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology: are they better than standard treatments? JAMA 293:970–978CrossRefPubMed
62.
Hunink MG, Krestin GP (2002) Study design for concurrent development, assessment, and implementation of new diagnostic imaging technology. Radiology 222:604–614CrossRefPubMed
63.
Jarvik JG (2002) Study design for the new millennium: changing how we perform research and practice medicine. Radiology 222:593–594CrossRefPubMed
64.
Launois R (2003) Economic assessment, a field between clinical research and observational studies. Bull Cancer 90:97–104PubMed
65.
Plevritis SK (2005) Decision analysis and simulation modeling for evaluating diagnostic tests on the basis of patient outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:581–590PubMed
66.
Otero HJ, Rybicki FJ, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ (2008) Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving? Radiology 249:917–925CrossRefPubMed
67.
68.
Sardanelli F, Di Leo G (2008) Biostatistics for radiologists. Springer, Milan, pp 165–179
69.
Kelly S, Berry E, Roderick P et al (1997) The identification of bias in studies of the diagnostic performance of imaging modalities. Br J Radiol 70:1028–1035PubMed
70.
71.
Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR (1995) Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 274:645–651CrossRefPubMed
72.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 226:24–28CrossRefPubMed
73.
Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA et al (2005) Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 235:347–353CrossRefPubMed
74.
Wilczynski NL (2008) Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: no change since STARD statement publication—before-and-after study. Radiology 248:817–823CrossRefPubMed
75.
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194CrossRefPubMed
76.
Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, CONSORT Group (2008) Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med 148:W60–W66PubMed
77.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S et al (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354:1896–1900CrossRefPubMed
78.
79.
Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, for the GRADE Working Group et al (2008) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 336:1106–1110CrossRefPubMed
80.
Field MJ, Lohr KN, eds (1992) Guidelines for clinical practice: from development to use. National Academy, Washington DC
81.
Lohr KN (1992) Reasonable expectations: from the Institute of Medicine. Interview by Paul M Schyve. QRB Qual Rev Bull 18:393–396PubMed
82.
Hurwitz B (1999) Legal and political considerations of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 318:661–664PubMed
83.
Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999) Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ 318:593–596PubMed
84.
Schmidt HG, van der Arend A, Moust JH, Kokx I, Boon L (1993) Influence of tutors’ subject-matter expertise on student effort and achievement in problem-based learning. Acad Med 68:784–791CrossRefPubMed
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR et al (1999) Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 282:1458–1465CrossRefPubMed
90.
Tigges S, Sutherland D, Manaster BJ (2000) Do radiologists use the American College of Radiology musculoskeletal appropriateness criteria? AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:545–547PubMed
91.
92.
Metadaten
Titel
Evidence-based radiology: why and how?
verfasst von
Francesco Sardanelli
Myriam G. Hunink
Fiona J. Gilbert
Giovanni Di Leo
Gabriel P. Krestin
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2010
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1574-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2010

European Radiology 1/2010 Zur Ausgabe

Breast

Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results

Ultrasound

Findings and limitations of focused ultrasound as a possible screening test in stable adult patients with blunt abdominal trauma: a Greek study

Musculoskeletal

Long-term results of percutaneous resection and interstitial laser ablation of osteoid osteomas

Neuro

Human brain tumor imaging with a protein-binding MR contrast agent: initial experience

Computed Tomography

Multidetector CT predictors of incomplete resection in primary cytoreduction of patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the editor re: Assessment of the spatial pattern of colorectal tumour perfusion estimated at perfusion CT using two-dimensional fractal analysis.

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

07.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Extreme Arbeitsverdichtung und kaum Supervision: Dr. Andrea Martini, Sprecherin des Bündnisses Junge Ärztinnen und Ärzte (BJÄ) über den Frust des ärztlichen Nachwuchses und die Vorteile des Rucksack-Modells.

Endlich: Zi zeigt, mit welchen PVS Praxen zufrieden sind

IT für Ärzte Nachrichten

Darauf haben viele Praxen gewartet: Das Zi hat eine Liste von Praxisverwaltungssystemen veröffentlicht, die von Nutzern positiv bewertet werden. Eine gute Grundlage für wechselwillige Ärztinnen und Psychotherapeuten.

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

28.04.2024 Schwindel Nachrichten

Akuter Schwindel stellt oft eine diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Wie nützlich dabei eine MRT ist, hat eine Studie aus Finnland untersucht. Immerhin einer von sechs Patienten wurde mit akutem ischämischem Schlaganfall diagnostiziert.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise