Utilization of abdominal radiography in the emergency department: Appropriateness, interpretation, radiation protection and costs.

INTRODUCTION: The use of abdominal radiography (AXR) apparently continues to be widespread despite its limited indications, the potential radiation and unnecessary costs associated. In addition, the interpretation and its report seem variable and not always performed by a radiologist. Our objective is to analyze the use, adequacy and usefulness of AXR in the emergency of a tertiary referral hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all the AXR performed in January 2020 in the emergency of our centre, as well as the patient's demographics and medical records, technical quality of the radiographs, indications according to the SERAM (Spanish Society of Radiology) Appropriateness Guidelines, presence of a formal radiology report, and impact on the clinical management of the patient. Of all non-appropriated AXR we calculated the radiation received by the patients and its extra costs. RESULTS: In January 2020, 429 AXR (9.1% of all radiographies) were performed in the emergency of our centre. The most frequent indication was abdominal pain (40%, n = 176), followed by low back pain (21.4%, n = 92). 12.4% of AXR requested did not include any clinical information. Most of the AXR (79.6%) had sufficient technical quality. 61.3% (n = 263) of the AXR performed were not indicated, assuming an average unjustified radiation dose per patient of 0.50 ±â€¯0.33 mSv, and a total additional cost of 6575;. Only 6% of the inadequate AXRs led to a change in the clinical management of the patient, compared to 29% of the adequate AXR (p < 0.001). Only 3% of the AXR had a formal radiology report. CONCLUSIONS: AXR is still common in the emergency setting, although most of them might be inadequate according to the SERAM Appropriateness Guidelines. Its use should be optimized to avoid unnecessary radiation and costs. Radiologists must have a more active participation in the management of AXR.

Women in Radiology: A perspective from Spain.

INTRODUCTION: There are gender inequalities in all fields, including radiology. Although the situation is improving, the presence of radiologists in leadership positions continues to be a minority. The objective of this article is to analyse the situation of women in the spanish radiology, comparing it with Europe and the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected the years 2000-2022 as reference period to make a comparison with feminization data throughout history. In addition, relevant specific data from the just begun 2023 were also included. The variables in which we investigated feminization were the following: medical students, medical graduates, radiology residents and specialists, section chiefs, department chairs, radiology residency programme directors, radiology university professors, presidents of the main radiological entities and societies in Spain, Europe and the United States, recipients of the main awards given by these radiological societies and chief editors of their journals. In order to perform this analysis we conducted an in-depth bibliographic research, we contacted the radiological societies of Spain, Europe and the USA and we carried out a survey in the main Spanish radiology departments. RESULTS: The female presence in radiology decreases as we rise to leadership positions, a situation that is patent in Spain, Europe and the US, comparison that will be analysed in depth throughout the article. In Spanish hospitals in 2021 there were 58.1% female radiology residents, 55% female radiologists, 42.9% female section chiefs and 24.4% female department chairs. In SERAM's history there have been 10% female presidents, 22% female gold medallists and 5% female editors-in-chief. If we analyse data from 2000 to 2023, female presidents reach 32% and female gold medallists 31%. CONCLUSIONS: Although gender inequality is declining, in radiology women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions. Work must be done in order to build a diverse and inclusive profession that reflects demographic reality.

[Value of heart rate recordings in selecting the initial treatment of hypertension]. / Interés de la frecuencia cardíaca en la elección del tratamiento inicial de la hipertensión.

60 patients with mild arterial hypertension are studied, divided into three groups according to their heart rate (HR): 20 with heart rate below 70 b.p.m.; 20 with heart rate between 70 and 80 b.p.m., and 20 with heart rate above 80 b.p.m. In every group, 10 patients were treated with atenolol and the other 10 patients with chlorthalidone. The cases of bad tolerance or bad response to any of these drugs were included in the other subgroup, so that a total number of 71 responses to drugs were studied. It has been found that the hypertension in patients having HR above 80 b.p.m. has a better response to atenolol. On the other hand, in patients having HR below 70 b.p.m. the response is better to chlorthalidone. In those patients with HR between 71 and 79 a similar response to both drugs is observed, nevertheless the decrease of the diastolic pressure is significantly bigger with atenolol. We arrive at the conclusion that when the HR is above 70 b.p.m. and especially above 80 b.p.m., better results are obtained using atenolol than chlorthalidone.

[Variations of the plasma levels of gonadotrophins (FSH and LH) and of its response to stimulation with gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) with different plasma levels of prolactin (PRL) in women with the syndrome of galactorrhea-amenorrhea (author's transl)]. / Variaciones de la tasa plasmática de gonadotrofinas (FSH y LH) y de su respuesta al estímulo con hormona liberadora de gonadotrofinas (GnRH) ante distintos niveles plasmáticos de prolactina (PRL) en mujeres con síndrome de galactorrea-amenorrea.

In 15 women with either isolated amenorrhea or amenorrhea associated to galactorrhea the basal levels of PRL allowed a clear differentiation into three groups. The first group (n = 3) had normal PRL levels (x +/- SD, 8.0 +/- 4.8 ng/ml), the second group (n = 4) had moderately elevated PRL (25.6 +/- 6.5 ng/ml), and the third group (n = 8) had very high PRL (176.0 +/- 76.1 ng/ml). All the patients in the third group had a pituitary adenoma. In the three groups the basal levels of FSH and LH and their response to GnRH were measured with the purpose of uncovering possible relationships between these results and the levels of PRL, and the tumoral or non-tumoral origin of the hyperprolactinemia when it was present. No statistically significant differences were found amongst the three groups. The results suggest that hyperprolactinemia has no influence upon gonadotrophin release or the endogenous release of GnRH. The measurement of plasma gonadotrophins and their response to GnRH appears to be of no clinical value for the differential diagnosis of the hyperprolactinemias.