Radiologists' Diagnostic Performance in Differentiation of Rickets and Classic Metaphyseal Lesions on Radiographs: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND. Despite evidence supporting the specificity of classic metaphyseal lesions (CML) for the diagnosis of child abuse, some medicolegal practitioners claim that CML result from rickets rather than trauma. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiologists' diagnostic performance in differentiating rickets and CML on radiographs. METHODS. This retrospective seven-center study included children younger than 2 years who underwent knee radiography from January 2007 to December 2018 and who had either rickets (25-hydroxyvitamin D level < 20 ng/mL and abnormal knee radiographs) or knee CML and a diagnosis of child abuse from a child abuse pediatrician. Additional injuries were identified through medical record review. Radiographs were cropped and zoomed to present similar depictions of the knee. Eight radiologists independently interpreted radiographs for diagnoses of rickets or CML, rated confidence levels, and recorded associated radiographic signs. RESULTS. Seventy children (27 girls, 43 boys) had rickets; 77 children (37 girls, 40 boys) had CML. Children with CML were younger than those with rickets (mean, 3.7 vs 14.2 months, p < .001; 89.6% vs 5.7% younger than 6 months; 3.9% vs 65.7% older than 1 year). All children with CML had injuries in addition to the knee CML identified at physical examination or other imaging examinations. Radiologists had almost perfect agreement for moderate- or high-confidence interpretations of rickets (κ = 0.92) and CML (κ = 0.89). Across radiologists, estimated sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for CML for moderate- or high-confidence interpretations were 95.1%, 97.0%, and 96.0%. Accuracy was not significantly different between pediatric and nonpediatric radiologists (p = .20) or between less experienced and more experienced radiologists (p = .57). Loss of metaphyseal zone of provisional calcification, cupping, fraying, and physeal widening were more common in rickets than CML, being detected in less than 4% of children with CML. Corner fracture, bucket-handle fracture, subphyseal lucency, deformed corner, metaphyseal irregularity, and subperiosteal new bone formation were more common in CML than rickets, being detected in less than 4% of children with rickets. CONCLUSION. Radiologists had high interobserver agreement and high diagnostic performance for differentiating rickets and CML. Recognition that CML mostly occur in children younger than 6 months and are unusual in children older than 1 year may assist interpretation. CLINICAL IMPACT. Rickets and CML have distinct radiographic signs, and radiologists can reliably differentiate these two entities.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a significant vascular disease found in 4% to 8% of the screening population. If ruptured, its mortality rate is between 75% and 90%, and it accounts for up to 5% of sudden deaths in the United States. Therefore, screening of AAA while asymptomatic has been a crucial portion of preventive health care worldwide. Ultrasound of the abdominal aorta is the primary imaging modality for screening of AAA recommended for asymptomatic adults regardless of their family history or smoking history. Alternatively, duplex ultrasound and CT abdomen and pelvis without contrast may be appropriate for screening. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

The degree of certainty in brain death: probability in clinical and Islamic legal discourse.

The University of Michigan conference "Where Religion, Policy, and Bioethics Meet: An Interdisciplinary Conference on Islamic Bioethics and End-of-Life Care" in April 2011 addressed the issue of brain death as the prototype for a discourse that would reflect the emergence of Islamic bioethics as a formal field of study. In considering the issue of brain death, various Muslim legal experts have raised concerns over the lack of certainty in the scientific criteria as applied to the definition and diagnosis of brain death by the medical community. In contrast, the medical community at large has not required absolute certainty in its process, but has sought to eliminate doubt through cumulative diagnostic modalities and supportive scientific evidence. This has recently become a principal model, with increased interest in data analysis and evidence-based medicine with the intent to analyze and ultimately improve outcomes. Islamic law has also long employed a systematic methodology with the goal of eliminating doubt from rulings regarding the question of certainty. While ample criticism of the scientific criteria of brain death (Harvard criteria) by traditional legal sources now exists, an analysis of the legal process in assessing brain death, geared toward informing the clinician's perspective on the issue, is lacking. In this article, we explore the role of certainty in the diagnostic modalities used to establish diagnoses of brain death in current medical practice. We further examine the Islamic jurisprudential approach vis-à-vis the concept of certainty (yaqin). Finally, we contrast the two at times divergent philosophies and consider what each perspective may contribute to the global discourse on brain death, understanding that the interdependence that exists between the theological, juridical, ethical, and medical/scientific fields necessitates an open discussion and active collaboration between all parties. We hope that this article serves to continue the discourse that was successfully begun by this initial interdisciplinary endeavor at the University of Michigan.