Appropriateness of adult plain abdominal radiograph requesting in a regional Emergency Department

Utilization of abdominal radiography in the emergency department: Appropriateness, interpretation, radiation protection and costs

INTRODUCTION

The use of abdominal radiography (AXR) apparently continues to be widespread despite its limited indications, the potential radiation and unnecessary costs associated. In addition, the interpretation and its report seem variable and not always performed by a radiologist. Our objective is to analyze the use, adequacy and usefulness of AXR in the emergency of a tertiary referral hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all the AXR performed in January 2020 in the emergency of our centre, as well as the patient's demographics and medical records, technical quality of the radiographs, indications according to the SERAM (Spanish Society of Radiology) Appropriateness Guidelines, presence of a formal radiology report, and impact on the clinical management of the patient. Of all non-appropriated AXR we calculated the radiation received by the patients and its extra costs.

RESULTS

In January 2020, 429 AXR (9.1% of all radiographies) were performed in the emergency of our centre. The most frequent indication was abdominal pain (40%, n = 176), followed by low back pain (21.4%, n = 92). 12.4% of AXR requested did not include any clinical information. Most of the AXR (79.6%) had sufficient technical quality. 61.3% (n = 263) of the AXR performed were not indicated, assuming an average unjustified radiation dose per patient of 0.50 ± 0.33 mSv, and a total additional cost of 6575;. Only 6% of the inadequate AXRs led to a change in the clinical management of the patient, compared to 29% of the adequate AXR (p < 0.001). Only 3% of the AXR had a formal radiology report.

CONCLUSIONS

AXR is still common in the emergency setting, although most of them might be inadequate according to the SERAM Appropriateness Guidelines. Its use should be optimized to avoid unnecessary radiation and costs. Radiologists must have a more active participation in the management of AXR.

Plain film of the abdomen remains a low sensitivity test in A&E

BACKGROUND

Plain film abdomens (PFA) are frequently used in the emergency department to help guide the management of patients presenting with abdominal symptoms. A plain film abdomen contributes minimally to clinical scenarios due to low sensitivity and specificity. Is a PFA useful in the emergency setting or does it serve to further complicate decision making?

AIM

We hypothesise that PFAs in the emergency department are over utilised to falsely reassure clinicians and patients alike.

METHODS

A search of the National Integrated Medical Imaging System (NIMIS) database in an Irish tertiary referral hospital was conducted. All plain film abdominal radiographs requested by the emergency department between 01/01/2022 and 31/08/2022 were identified. Requests where there was suspicion of foreign body were excluded. A retrospective search of the NIMIS database identified subjects who underwent subsequent imaging.

RESULTS

A total of 619 abdominal films were deemed suitable for inclusion. These comprised of 338 male and 282 female subjects. Subjects had an average age of 64 years. Fifty-seven per cent of PFAs detected no abnormality. Forty-two per cent of subjects had subsequent imaging. The plain film findings correlated with further imaging in only 15% of cases. One case of ruptured aortic aneurysm and 11 perforations were detected on computerised tomography, none of these cases were evident on abdominal X-ray.

CONCLUSION

Plain film abdomen requests are over utilised in the emergency department. PFAs are not sensitive for detecting acute pathology and should not be used to decide if a patient requires further imaging or a full clinical assessment.

The utility of the abdominal series in the emergency setting: a retrospective review

PURPOSE

The abdominal series (AXR) remains a frequently ordered test in the emergency department (ED), despite existing literature questioning its utility. The aim of this study was to characterize the use of the AXR in the ED by quantifying how often it is ordered and the frequency of subsequent imaging. Additionally, a time estimate in ED associated with the AXR was quantified. We hypothesized that there would be a low clinical utility of the AXR, and long associated time period spent in the ED.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of AXRs performed in the ED from January to December 2019 was performed. The local picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and electronic medical record were used to collect the variables.

RESULTS

Of 701 AXRs, 438 (62.4%) were reported normal, and 263 (37.6%) were abnormal. A Chi Squared test showed that the two variables (abdominal series result and follow up imaging completion) were significantly related, with p < 0.001. However, the effect size was small (Nagelkerke R square = 0.022). The average time spent in the ED for these patients was 7.27 h, and the average time between the AXR being ordered and interpreted was 1.31 h.

CONCLUSION

The majority of AXRs were reported as normal. Our results showed that AXR had a statistically significant, but low clinically significant predictive ability on subsequent imaging ordering. This supports our hypothesis that the AXR is of low clinical utility with respect to the rate of ordering follow up imaging. The AXR also translated to a quantifiable time interval during the patient's stay in ED. Minimizing overuse of the AXR may result in a decrease in patient duration in the ED.

Role of contrast-enhanced serial/spot abdominal X-rays in perioperative follow-up of patients undergoing abdominal surgery: An observational clinical study

BACKGROUND

Many imaging methods such as ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopy are used to identify the problems or complications that occur in the perioperative period and to determine the appropriate therapeutic approach. Specialists at surgical clinics and intensive care units sometimes need diagnostic procedures that can give quick results or reveal unexpected results. In particular, rapid on-site evaluation of patients followed under intensive care conditions has several advantages.

AIM

To determine the problems developing in patients in the perioperative period by contrast-enhanced abdominal X-ray (CE-AXR), revealing their current status or defining the effectiveness of CE-AXR.

METHODS

The files of the patients who underwent hepatopancreatobiliary or upper gastrointestinal surgery, whose CE-AXR film was taken, were reviewed retrospectively. Abdominal X-ray radiographs taken after ingestion of a water-soluble contrast agent (iohexol, 300 mg, 50 cc vial) and its application in a drain, nasogastric tube, or stent were evaluated. The contribution of the data obtained in patients who underwent CE-AXR to the diagnosis, follow-up, and treatment processes and the effectiveness of the application were investigated.

RESULTS

CE-AXR was applied to 131 patients in our clinic, most of whom underwent hepatopancreatobiliary or upper gastrointestinal surgery. It was determined that the data obtained from CE-AXR films taken in 98 (74.8%) of the patients contributed to the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up expectations and positively affected the clinical processes.

CONCLUSION

CE-AXR is a simple procedure that can be applied anywhere, especially in intensive care patients and at bedside, with a portable X-ray device. The simplicity of the procedure, less radiation exposure for the patients, less time wastage, reduction in the CT and endoscopy procedure burden and costs, quick results, rapid assessment of the situation, and enabling the monitoring of processes with repetitive procedures are important advantages. X-rays taken will be useful in terms of being a reference value during the follow-up period of the patient and determining the situation in medicolegal processes.

Measuring appropriateness of diagnostic imaging: a scoping review

In radiology, the justification of diagnostic imaging is a key performance indicator. To date, specific recommendations on the measurement of appropriateness in diagnostic imaging are missing. To map the study literature concerning the definition, measures, methods and data used for analyses of appropriateness in research of diagnostic imaging. We conducted a scoping review in Medline, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two independent reviewers undertook screening and data extraction. After screening 6021 records, we included 50 studies. National guidelines (n = 22/50) or American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (n = 23/50) were used to define and rate appropriateness. 22/50 studies did not provide methodological details about the appropriateness assessment. The included studies varied concerning modality, amount of reviewed examinations (88-13,941) and body regions. Computed tomography (27 studies, 27,168 examinations) was the most frequently analyzed modality, followed by magnetic resonance imaging (17 studies, 6559 examinations) and radiography (10 studies, 7095 examinations). Heterogeneous appropriateness rates throughout single studies (0-100%), modalities, and body regions (17-95%) were found. Research on pediatric and outpatient imaging was sparse. Multicentric, methodologically robust and indication-oriented studies would strengthen appropriateness research in diagnostic imaging and help to develop reliable key performance indicators.

Concordance between a gastrointestinal consultant radiologist, a consultant radiologist and qualified reporting radiographers interpreting abdominal radiographs

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers can accurately report musculoskeletal and chest radiographs, but there is paucity of research comparing the performance of reporting radiographers (RRs) with consultant radiologists when interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs. This study assessed interobserver agreement in the clinical setting between reporting radiographers and a consultant radiologist compared to an expert gastrointestinal radiologist in a District General Hospital. Major discordant reports affecting patient management were also examined.

METHODS

126 abdominal radiographs reported by 3 RRs in clinical practice were randomly selected and reported by a consultant radiologist and index gastrointestinal radiologist. The reports of the RRs and consultant radiologist were compared against the reports made by the index radiologist for agreement by a colorectal consultant surgeon. All 126 reports were scored as being in either complete agreement, minor disagreement or major disagreement which would have resulted in a change to patient management.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall agreement between the consultant radiologist (CR) and RRs when compared to the index radiologist (CR: n = 90/126, 71.4% and RRs: n = 94/126, 74.6%. p = 0.57). Major disagreements were found, but there was no significant difference between both groups (CR: n = 23/126, 18.3% and RRs: n = 17/126, 13.5%. p = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

RRs can report abdominal radiographs to a comparable level of agreement as a consultant radiologist in the clinical setting. There was no significant difference in reports deemed to affect patient management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study addresses the gap in assessing the performance of RRs reporting abdominal radiographs. This small scale study indicates that radiographers could provide additional support in the reporting of abdominal radiographs. This would help to reduce radiologist workload and enhance the role of the reporting radiographer.

CLASSIFICATION

Agreement between reporting radiographers and radiologists interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs.

The natural language processing of radiology requests and reports of chest imaging: Comparing five transformer models’ multilabel classification and a proof-of-concept study

Background

Radiology requests and reports contain valuable information about diagnostic findings and indications, and transformer-based language models are promising for more accurate text classification.

Methods

In a retrospective study, 2256 radiologist-annotated radiology requests (8 classes) and reports (10 classes) were divided into training and testing datasets (90% and 10%, respectively) and used to train 32 models. Performance metrics were compared by model type (LSTM, Bertje, RobBERT, BERT-clinical, BERT-multilingual, BERT-base), text length, data prevalence, and training strategy. The best models were used to predict the remaining 40,873 cases’ categories of the datasets of requests and reports.

Results

The RobBERT model performed the best after 4000 training iterations, resulting in AUC values ranging from 0.808 [95% CI (0.757–0.859)] to 0.976 [95% CI (0.956–0.996)] for the requests and 0.746 [95% CI (0.689–0.802)] to 1.0 [95% CI (1.0–1.0)] for the reports. The AUC for the classification of normal reports was 0.95 [95% CI (0.922–0.979)]. The predicted data demonstrated variability of both diagnostic yield for various request classes and request patterns related to COVID-19 hospital admission data.

Conclusion

Transformer-based natural language processing is feasible for the multilabel classification of chest imaging request and report items. Diagnostic yield varies with the information in the requests.

Diagnostic values of supine and erect abdominal radiographs for patients with acute abdomen: which is better for decision making?

BACKGROUND

Plain abdominal radiography including supine and erect abdominal radiographs (SAR and EAR) is a frequently used image modality for preliminary evaluation of acute abdomen. We aimed to explore which one of the SAR or EAR has a higher diagnostic value in overall diagnosis of acute abdomen, including their respective advantages over each other for the various underlying diseases.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the imaging findings of plain abdominal radiography of patients with acute abdomen who received abdominal computed tomography (CT) within 24 hours at the emergency department of a medical center in northern Taiwan between October 2019 and February 2020. Final diagnosis was made by CT reports and clinical data. The relevance between the imaging findings and clinical diagnosis in the groups of SAR and EAR were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1009 cases with acute abdomen were included, of which 341 (33.8%) underwent EAR and 668 (66.2%) underwent SAR. Among them, 820 cases had final diagnosis confirmed by CT and clinical data. In comparison of the diagnostic relevance of SAR and EAR, there were no significant difference in the overall acute abdomen, but EAR showed a better diagnostic relevance in cases with bowel obstruction than SAR did (100% vs 87.2%, p < 0.05). No statistical difference in other abdominal diseases.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference between SAR and EAR in evaluation of overall acute abdomen. However, EARs has a diagnostic advantage over SAR for evaluation of suspected bowel obstruction.

Quality use of diagnostic imaging in trauma, and the impact on emergency medical practice-a retrospective clinical audit

PURPOSE

The current study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of the decisions made to order diagnostic imaging for emergency trauma patients.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of 642 clinical decisions for 370 non-consecutive trauma cases was conducted at a level 1 adult trauma centre. Radiographs and computed tomography investigations were compared for compliance with the American College of Radiology/European Society of Radiology (ACR/ESR) imaging guidelines. The non-compliant imaging orders were evaluated for the following medical officer ranks: Junior Medical Officer (JMO), Senior Resident Medical Officer (SRMO), Emergency Medicine Registrar (EMR) and Consultants/Career Medical Officer (CMO). The time of imaging order (day/evening or night shift), whether the imaging led to conservative or surgical patient management, and whether the imaging order decisions led to a change in the clinical management of the patient were also considered.

RESULTS

Non-compliance with the ACR/ESR guidelines was low. At least half of non-compliant decisions made by each level of medical officer resulted in a change in patient management. In total, 11 (65%), 25 (53%), 12 (63%) and 11 (52%) of non-compliant imaging orders placed by JMOs, SRMOs, EMRs and Consultants, respectively, resulted in change of patient management. JMOs and SRMOs ordered a significantly higher proportion of non-compliant imaging studies for conservatively managed patients in comparison to surgically managed patients.

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted that most non-compliant imaging orders benefited the patient.