Posted on February 28, 2013
*Upright Sternum-Lateral; http://youtu.be/IjOC6yhHE-s
*Sternum lateral; http://youtu.be/HUmTk1xdQNw
*Ribs-AP,AP Oblique; http://youtu.be/woX5NBx46Vo
*Ribs PA Upper&Lower,PA Oblique; http://youtu.be/bB8-sScM24s
This entry was posted in Positioning- Bony thorax.
Wow, great article post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.
Thanks a lot for the article.Much thanks again. Really Cool.
truck driver resume
Major thanks for the blog.Thanks Again. Want more.
I really enjoy the article.Much thanks again. Cool.
Thank you ever so for you article post.Thanks Again. Awesome.
post it dispenser
I cannot thank you enough for the article post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.
Thank you for your blog article.Much thanks again. Will read on…
dal sol organization
Thanks so much for the blog article.Really thank you! Fantastic.
nju mobile forum
Really enjoyed this blog article.Really thank you! Cool.
H Pylori Symptoms
Thanks a lot for the article post.Thanks Again. Will read on…
Im thankful for the article post. Want more.
Click Here For Video
A big thank you for your article post.Much thanks again. Awesome.
Golf breaks in Spain
Great, thanks for sharing this blog.Really looking forward to read more. Want more.
I really like and appreciate your blog article. Will read on…
cameretta design bambini
Appreciate you sharing, great article post.Really thank you! Will read on…
Fantastic blog post.Thanks Again. Really Great.
best tablet for the money
Buying a professional sports team
Structured CCTA reports provide clearer count of vessels with stenosis
By Evan GodtFeb 27, 2013
– Doctors Reviewing Data
Structured impressions on a coronary CT angiography (CCTA) report improved interpretation agreement with regard to the number of vessels with significant stenosis compared with free-form impressions, according to a study published online Feb. 27 in the Journal of the American College of Radiology .
Using structured reports decreased the tendency of clinicians to overestimate non-significant stenosis, according to authors Brian B. Ghoshhajra, MD, MBA, and colleagues from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“The utility of [CCTA] relies on precise reporting and accurate result interpretation,” wrote the authors. “Given the rapid development in cardiac imaging and thus evolving terminologies, effective communication between cardiac imaging specialists and referring clinicians is critical to facilitate correct integration of radiological evidence into clinical decision making.”
CCTA reports at Massachusetts General Hospital follow a structured format for most sections, explained the authors. The impression section, however, was traditionally a free-form summary where the most clinically relevant items could be conveyed.
In an effort to further improve and standardize reporting, an impression template was implemented that included a description of patients’ stenosis according to the six standard categories laid out by the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography—normal, minimal stenosis, mild stenosis, moderate stenosis, severe stenosis and occluded.
To assess referring clinicians’ understanding of patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) severity using the template, 50 clinical CCTA reports from May 2011 to April 2012 were retrospectively selected for review, half of which contained structured impressions and half of which contained free-form impressions.
Four cardiologists and two cardiac imaging specialists were given a survey containing only the randomized blinded impressions, and interpretations were examined regarding three questions:
1.Worst stenosis severity
2.Number of vessels with significant stenosis
3.The presences of non-evaluable segments.
Results showed Question 2 was most affected by the structured impressions, with agreement on the number of vessels with significant stenosis improving from fair to moderate compared with free-form impressions. Agreement proportions were 53 percent and 68 percent for free-form and structured impressions, respectively.
Agreement on Question 1 was excellent for both types of impressions, and moderate for both types on Question 3, according to Ghoshhajra and colleagues. They noted that satisfaction was generally high and similar for both free-from and structured impression sections, though imaging specialists, compared with referring clinicians, expressed higher levels of satisfaction.
Ghoshhajra and colleagues concluded that while structured impressions improved interpretations with regard to the number of vessels with significant stenosis, room for improvement still exists to optimize wording of CCTA reports.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.