Evidence-Based Imaging of the Acute Abdomen: Where Is the Evidence?
Emergency radiology is still considered an emerging subspecialty compared to more established areas such as neuroradiology and abdominal-pelvic imaging. Although this suggests that less time has passed to allow dedicated research in imaging associated with emergency medicine, it also implies that there are opportunities for study in this field in the future.
In this introductory chapter, we emphasize the importance of evidence-based medicine in radiology and then specifically in the setting of an acute abdomen. Tools available for designing and reporting research are introduced: This includes QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies), STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy), and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [1, 2]. We also expand on commonly accessed information currently used to help guide radiologists in diagnosis and decision making with regard to acute abdominal and pelvic conditions.
Perceived barriers to research in emergency radiology are reviewed. Tips and specific tools to implement when designing an emergency radiology research study are provided; this information may also be useful when critically appraising published literature. Finally, an overview of emerging research opportunities and innovative areas in emergency radiology research is introduced, with focus on acute abdominal conditions, all of which will be covered in more detail in subsequent chapters of this textbook.
KeywordsEvidence-based medicine Levels of evidence Cross-sectional imaging Abdominal imaging Emergency radiology
American College of Radiology
As low as reasonably achievable
Left lower quadrant
Left upper quadrant
Magnetic resonance imaging
Negative predictive value
Patient, intervention, comparison, outcome
Positive predictive value
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- QUADAS 2
Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Right lower quadrant
Right upper quadrant
Specific absorption rate
Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy
- 4.www.imagewisely.org. Accessed 1 Jun 2017.
- 5.www.imagegently.org. Accessed 1 Jun 2017.
- 8.https://scholar.google.ca. Accessed 30 May 2017.
- 9.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Accessed 3 Jun 2017.
- 10.link.springer.com/journal/10140. Accessed 3 Jun 2017.
- 13.www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/AppCriteria/TopicDevelopmentProcess.pdf?la=en. Accessed 3 Jun 2017.
- 14.www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria. Accessed 30 May 2017.
- 15.acsearch.acr.org/docs/69468/Narrative/. Accessed 6 Jun 2017.
- 16.https://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/135E-CPG-October2003.pdf. Accessed 6 Jun 2017.
- 17.http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/thy.2015.0020. Accessed 6 Jun 2017.
- 19.Murthy C, Davis R, Koegelenberg CF, Irusen EM, Pitcher RD. The impact of an electronic clinical decision support for pulmonary embolism imaging on the efficiency of computed tomography pulmonary angiography utilisation in a resource-limited setting. S Afr Med J. 2015;106(1):62–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Hong JP, Korevaar DA, McGrath TA, Ziai H, Frank R, Alabousi M, et al. Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: adherence to STARD 2015. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;in press.Google Scholar
- 24.Evidence-based health care: a new approach to teaching the practice of health care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group 1994 [updated Aug. 1994/08/01:[648–53].Google Scholar
- 28.http://www.prisma-statement.org. Accessed 6 Jun 2017.
- 30.http://pubs.rsna.org/page/radiology/pia/checklists. Accessed 2 Jun 2017.
- 31.https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development. Accessed 22 May 2017.
- 33.Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology. 2013;269(2):413–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.https://clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed 2 Jun 2017.
- 39.www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/icmje-recommendations. Accessed 3 Jun 2017.
- 40.www.anzctr.org.au. Accessed 3 Jun 2017.
- 41.www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index/htm. Accessed 3 Jun 2017.
- 42.www.trialregister.nl. Accessed 3 Jun 2017.
- 43.https://eudract.ema.europa.eu. Accessed 3 Jun 2017.
- 52.Ahn S. LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar