Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 38, Supplement 4, pp 660–663 | Cite as

Imaging utilization commentary: a radiology perspective

  • Martin H. ReedEmail author


To adhere to the ALARA concept, imaging should be limited to studies that actually contribute to the management of the patient. For example, by applying the Ottawa Ankle Rule and the Ottawa Knee Rule, fewer radiographs are required to evaluate ankle and knee trauma in children. Chest radiographs usually do not contribute to the management of children presenting with typical acute bronchiolitis or asthma, and they can be detrimental because consolidation resulting from retained secretions is interpreted as pneumonia and the child is started on antibiotics unnecessarily. Moreover, a radiograph of the abdomen has poor validity and reproducibility for the diagnosis of constipation. The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) and the Pediatric Emergency Research in Canada (PERC) are currently developing decision rules for the use of CT in the assessment of minor head injuries in children, which should reduce its utilization in this condition. PECARN is also developing a decision rule for the use of CT in the assessment of abdominal trauma in children. CT is frequently used for the diagnosis of appendicitis in children, but appendicitis can be diagnosed clinically. If imaging is required, appendicitis can often be diagnosed with US, and CT need only be used in the minority of cases where the diagnosis is still in doubt. Utilization guidelines for pediatric imaging studies obtained in children in the emergency setting can improve yield and help in the more efficient management of often scarce health care resources.


Pediatric radiology Utilization Outcomes 


  1. 1.
    Broder J, Fordham LA, Warshaver DM (2007) Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the pediatric emergency department, 2000–2006. Emerg Radiol 14:227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2005) Utilization of radiology services in the United States: levels and trends in modalities, regions, and populations. Radiology 234:824–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Picano E (2004) Sustainability of medical imaging. BMJ 328:578–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mold JW, Stein HF (1986) The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients. N Engl J Med 314:512–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rang M (1972) The Ulysses syndrome. Can Med Assoc J 106:122–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W et al (2007) Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 120:677–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD et al (1993) Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 269:1127–1132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stiell I, Wells G, Laupacis A et al (1995) Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Multicentre Ankle Rule Study Group. BMJ 311:594–597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leddy JJ, Kesari A, Smolinski RJ (2002) Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rule in a university sports medicine center. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34:57–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wynn-Thomas S, Love T, McLeod D et al (2002) The Ottawa ankle rules for the use of diagnostic X-ray in after hours medical centres in New Zealand. NZ Med J 115:U184Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plint AC, Bulloch B, Osmond MH et al (1999) Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in children with ankle injuries. Acad Emerg Med 6:1005–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chande VT (1995) Decision rules for roentgenography of children with acute ankle injuries. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 149:255–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stiell IG, Wells GA, Hoag RH et al (1997) Implementation of the Ottawa Knee Rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA 278:2075–2079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA et al (1996) Prospective validation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA 275:611–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emparanza JI, Aginaga JR, Estudio Multicentro en Urgencias de Osakidetza: Reglas de Ottawa (EMUORO) Group (2001) Validation of the Ottawa knee rules. Ann Emerg Med 38:364–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bulloch B, Neto G, Plint A et al (2003) Validation of the Ottawa Knee Rule in children: a multicenter study. Ann Emerg Med 42:48–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brehaut JC, Stiell IG, Visentin L et al (2005) Clinical decision rules “in the real world”: how a widely disseminated rule is used in everyday practice. Acad Emerg Med 12:948–956PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bishop JY, Flatow EL (2005) Pediatric shoulder trauma. Clin Orthop 432:41–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schuh S, Amina L, Upton A et al (2007) Evaluation of the utility of radiography in acute bronchiolitis. J Pediatr 150:429–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bordley WC, Viswanathan M, King VJ et al (2004) Diagnosis and testing in bronchiolitis: a systematic review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 158:119–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    American Academy of Pediatrics Subcommittee on Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis (2006) Diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics 118:1774–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Philippe M, Mouillet E, Rachid LS (2006) Comparison of medical subject headings and standard terminology regarding performance of diagnostic tests. J Med Libr Assoc 94:221–223Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leech SC, McHugh K, Sullivan PB (1999) Evaluation of a method of assessing fecal loading on plain abdominal radiographs in children. Pediatr Radiol 29:255–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Lorijn F, vanRijn RR, Heijmans J et al (2006) The Leech method for diagnosing constipation: intra- and interobserver variability and accuracy. Pediatr Radiol 36:43–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klassen TP, Reed MH, Stiell IG et al (2000) Variation in utilization of computed tomography scanning for the investigation of minor head trauma in children: a Canadian experience. Acad Emerg Med 7:739–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Palchak MJ, Holmes JF, Vance CW et al (2003) A decision rule for identifying children at low risk for brain injuries after blunt head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 42:492–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dunning J, Daly JP, Lomas JP et al (2006) Derivation of the children’s head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events decision rule for head injury in children. Arch Dis Child 91:885–891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oman JA, Cooper RJ, Holmes JF et al (2006) Performance of a decision rule to predict need for computed tomography among children with blunt head trauma. Pediatics 117:e238–e246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network. Accessed 5 March, 2008
  31. 31.
    Ruess L, Sivit CJ, Eichelberger MR et al (1997) Blunt abdominal trauma in children: impact of CT on operative and nonoperative management. AJR 169:1011–1014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jindal A, Velmahos GC, Rofougaran R (2002) Computed tomography for evaluation of mild to moderate pediatric trauma: are we overusing it? World J Surg 26:13–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kosloske AM, Love CL, Rohrer JE et al (2004) The diagnosis of appendicitis in children: outcomes of a strategy based on pediatric surgical evaluation. Pediatrics 113:29–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smink DS, Finkelstein JA, Garcia Pena BM et al (2004) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children using a clinical practice guideline. J Pediatr Surg 39:458–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaiser S, Frenckner B, Jorulf HK (2002) Suspected appendicitis in children: US and CT—a prospective randomized study. Radiology 223:633–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ et al (2006) US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 241:83–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Diagnostic Imaging, Children’s Hospital, Health Sciences CentreUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyChildren’s HospitalWinnipeg, ManitobaCanada

Personalised recommendations