Physical Therapist Practice and the Role of Diagnostic Imaging

The Canadian C-Spine (cervical-spine) Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Low-Risk Criteria (NLC) are decision rules to guide the use of cervical-spine radiography in patients with trauma. It is unclear how the two decision rules compare in terms of clinical performance. We conducted a prospective cohort study in nine Canadian emergency departments comparing the CCR and NLC as applied to alert patients with trauma who were in stable condition. The CCR and NLC were interpreted by 394 physicians for patients before radiography. Among the 8283 patients, 169 (2.0 percent) had clinically important cervical-spine injuries. In 845 (10.2 percent) of the patients, physicians did not evaluate range of motion as required by the CCR algorithm. In analyses that excluded these indeterminate cases, the CCR was more sensitive than the NLC (99.4 percent vs. 90.7 percent, P<0.001) and more specific (45.1 percent vs. 36.8 percent, P<0.001) for injury, and its use would have resulted in lower radiography rates (55.9 percent vs. 66.6 percent, P<0.001). In secondary analyses that included all patients, the sensitivity and specificity of CCR, assuming that the indeterminate cases were all positive, were 99.4 percent and 40.4 percent, respectively (P<0.001 for both comparisons with the NLC). Assuming that the CCR was negative for all indeterminate cases, these rates were 95.3 percent (P=0.09 for the comparison with the NLC) and 50.7 percent (P=0.001). The CCR would have missed 1 patient and the NLC would have missed 16 patients with important injuries. For alert patients with trauma who are in stable condition, the CCR is superior to the NLC with respect to sensitivity and specificity for cervical-spine injury, and its use would result in reduced rates of radiography. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society

The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze a large group of CT and MRI examinations for appropriateness using evidence-based guidelines. The authors reviewed medical records from 459 elective outpatient CT and MR examinations from primary care physicians. Evidence-based appropriateness criteria from a radiology benefit management company were used to determine if the examination would have met criteria for approval. Submitted clinical history at the time of interpretation and clinic notes and laboratory results preceding the date of the imaging study were examined to simulate a real-time consultation with the referring provider. The radiology reports and subsequent clinic visits were analyzed for outcomes. Of the 459 examinations reviewed, 284 (62%) were CT and 175 (38%) were MRI. Three hundred forty-one (74%) were considered appropriate, and 118 (26%) were not considered appropriate. Examples of inappropriate examinations included brain CT for chronic headache, lumbar spine MR for acute back pain, knee or shoulder MRI in patients with osteoarthritis, and CT for hematuria during a urinary tract infection. Fifty-eight percent of the appropriate studies had positive results and affected subsequent management, whereas only thirteen percent [corrected] of inappropriate studies had positive results and affected management. A high percentage of examinations not meeting appropriateness criteria and subsequently yielding negative results suggests a need for tools to help primary care physicians improve the quality of their imaging decision requests. In the current environment, which stresses cost containment and comparative effectiveness, traditional radiology benefit management tools are being challenged by clinical decision support, with an emphasis on provider education coupled with electronic order entry systems.