Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 11, pp 3176–3183 | Cite as

Relative diagnostic utility of radiologist-recommended abdominal ultrasound following emergency department abdominal and pelvic computed tomography

  • David Li
  • Michael PatlasEmail author
  • Kristopher Mclean
  • Richard Duszak



To retrospectively assess the relative diagnostic utility of radiologist-recommended ultrasound (US) following emergency department (ED) abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) in patients with non-traumatic abdominal and/or pelvic pain.


Blinded to clinical outcomes, two radiology residents and an attending radiologist reviewed radiology reports and relevant medical records for all adult patients from EDs at two academic medical centers from one institution over a 3-year time period, who underwent abdominal/pelvic US within 72 h of an initial IV contrast-enhanced abdominal and pelvic CT for non-traumatic abdominal and/or pelvic pain. Incremental diagnostic utility of subsequent US was deemed present when (1) US findings were discordant with those at CT, or (2) findings were concordant, but US yielded additional relevant diagnostic information. Diagnostic utility was stratified by whether examinations were radiologist-recommended or independently ordered by treating physicians.


319 encounters satisfied the inclusion criteria, including 194 female patients (18–98 years of age, mean of 59.8 years) and 125 male patients (20–90 years of age, mean of 63.2 years). 7 (2.2%) subsequent US examinations were discordant with the initial CT, 100 (31.3%) were concordant but provided relevant additional information, and 212 (66.5%) were concordant without providing additional information, for an overall diagnostic utility of 33.5%. Of subsequent radiologist-recommended US examinations, 70.0% (63/90) yielded incremental diagnostic utility vs. 19.2% (44/229) ordered independently by treating physicians (OR 3.65; 95% CI 2.31–5.75). For those encounters in which US provided incremental diagnostic utility, the most commonly assessed anatomical areas were the biliary system and the female adnexal region.


In ED patients with non-traumatic abdominal and/or pelvic pain undergoing abdominal and pelvic CT, follow-up US examinations recommended by radiologists are more likely to provide incremental diagnostic utility than those independently ordered by their treating physicians. In order to optimize the value of advanced imaging, radiologists should assume greater roles in team-based utilization management.


Emergency department Ultrasound Computed tomography Repeat imaging 


  1. 1.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Duszak R Jr (2017) Abdominal imaging ordering patterns by referring provider specialty. Abdom Radiol 42(9):2363–2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Hanna TN, Babb JS, Duszak R Jr (2017) Changes in emergency department imaging: perspectives from national patient surveys over two decades. J Am Coll Radiol 14(10):1282–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinto A, Reginelli A, Cagini L, et al. (2013) Accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute calculous cholecystitis: review of the literature. Crit Ultrasound J 5:S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson SW, Lucey BC, Varghese JC, Soto JA (2006) Accuracy of MDCT in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. AJR 187:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harris RD, Javitt MC, Brown DL, et al. (2013) ACR appropriateness criteria: clinically suspected adnexal mass. Ultrasound Q 29:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pinto Leite N, Pereira JM, Cunha R, Pinto P, Sirlin C (2005) CT evaluation of appendicitis and its complications: imaging techniques and key diagnostic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:406–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paulson EK, Thompson WM (2015) Review of small-bowel obstruction: the diagnosis and when to worry. Radiology 275(2):332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cho KC, Morehouse HT, Alterman DD, Thornhill BA (1990) Sigmoid diverticulitis: diagnostic role of CT—comparison with barium enema studies. Radiology 176(1):111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laméris W, van Randen A, van Es HW, et al. (2009) Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ 338:b2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Welch HG, Hayes KJ, Frost C (2012) Repeat testing among medicare beneficiaries. Arch Intern Med 172(22):1745–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ip IK, Mortele KJ, Prevedello LM, Khorasani R (2012) Repeat abdominal imaging examinations in a tertiary care hospital. Am J Med 125:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duszak R Jr, Berlin JW (2012) Utilization management in radiology, part 1: rationale, history, and current status. J Am Coll Radiol 9:694–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duszak R Jr, Berlin JW (2012) Utilization management in radiology, part 2: perspectives and future directions. J Am Coll Radiol 9:700–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levin DC, Rao VM (2004) Turf wars in radiology: other causes of overutilization and what can be done about it. J Am Coll Radiol 1:317–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levine D, et al. (2010) Management of asymptomatic ovarian and other adnexal cysts imaged at US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound consensus conference statement. Radiology 256(3):943–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riddell AM, Khalili K (2006) Assessment of acute abdominal pain: utility of a second cross-sectional imaging examination. Radiology 238:570–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yitta S, Mausner EV, Kim A, et al. (2011) Pelvic ultrasound immediately following MDCT in female patients with abdominal/pelvic pain: is it always necessary? Emerg Radiol 18:371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patel MD, Dubinsky TJ (2007) Reimaging the female pelvis with ultrasound after CT: general principles. Ultrasound Q 23(3):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rao VM, Levin DC (2012) The overuse of diagnostic imaging and the choosing wisely initiative. Ann Intern Med 157:574–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hillman BJ, Joseph CA, Mabry MR, et al. (1990) Frequency and costs of diagnostic imaging in office practice—a comparison of self-referring and radiologist-referring physicians. N Engl J Med 323:1604–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Radecki SE, Steele JP (1990) Effect of on-site facilities on use of diagnostic radiology by non-radiologists. Invest Radiol 25:190–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allen B Jr, Carrol LV, Hughes DR, et al. (2017) Downstream imaging utilization after emergency department ultrasound interpreted by radiologists versus nonradiologists: a medicare claims-based study. J Am Coll Radiol 14:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Durand DJ, McGinty G, Duszak R (2015) From gatekeeper to steward: the evolving concept of radiologist accountability for imaging utilization. J Am Coll Radiol 12:1446–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    American College of Radiology (2017) ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Accessed Sept 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyHamilton General HospitalHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Radiology and Imaging SciencesEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations