ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Workup of Pleural Effusion or Pleural Disease.

Pleural effusions are categorized as transudative or exudative, with transudative effusions usually reflecting the sequala of a systemic etiology and exudative effusions usually resulting from a process localized to the pleura. Common causes of transudative pleural effusions include congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, and renal failure, whereas exudative effusions are typically due to infection, malignancy, or autoimmune disorders. This document summarizes appropriateness guidelines for imaging in four common clinical scenarios in patients with known or suspected pleural effusion or pleural disease. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Workup of pleural effusion or pleural disease

Pleural effusions are categorized as transudative or exudative, with transudative effusions usually reflecting the sequala of a systemic etiology and exudative effusions usually resulting from a process localized to the pleura. Common causes of transudative pleural effusions include congestive heart failure, cirrhosis, and renal failure, whereas exudative effusions are typically due to infection, malignancy, or autoimmune disorders. This document summarizes appropriateness guidelines for imaging in four common clinical scenarios in patients with known or suspected pleural effusion or pleural disease. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Incidentally Detected Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodule.

Incidental pulmonary nodules are common. Although the majority are benign, most are indeterminate for malignancy when first encountered making their management challenging. CT remains the primary imaging modality to first characterize and follow-up incidental lung nodules. This document reviews available literature on various imaging modalities and summarizes management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules detected incidentally. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Lung Cancer Screening: 2022 Update.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality for men and women in the United States. Screening for lung cancer with annual low-dose CT is saving lives, and the continued implementation of lung screening can save many more. In 2015, the CMS began covering annual lung screening for those who qualified based on the original United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung screening criteria, which included patients 55 to 77 year of age with a 30 pack-year history of smoking, who were either currently using tobacco or who had smoked within the previous 15 years. In 2021, the USPSTF issued new screening guidelines, decreasing the age of eligibility to 80 years of age and pack-years to 20. Lung screening remains controversial for those who do not meet the updated USPSTF criteria, but who have additional risk factors for the development of lung cancer. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging and Follow-Up of Esophageal Cancer.

This document provides recommendations regarding the role of imaging in the staging and follow-up of esophageal cancer. For initial clinical staging, locoregional extent and nodal disease are typically assessed with esophagogastroduodenoscopy and esophageal ultrasound. FDG-PET/CT or CT of the chest and abdomen is usually appropriate for use in initial clinical staging as they provide additional information regarding distant nodal and metastatic disease. The detection of metastatic disease is critical in the initial evaluation of patients with esophageal cancer because it will direct patients to a treatment pathway centered on palliative radiation rather than surgery. For imaging during treatment, particularly neoadjuvant chemotherapy, FDG-PET/CT is usually appropriate, because some studies have found that it can provide information regarding primary lesion response, but more importantly it can be used to detect metastases that have developed since the induction of treatment. For patients who have completed treatment, FDG-PET/CT or CT of the chest and abdomen is usually appropriate for evaluating the presence and extent of metastases in patients with no suspected or known recurrence and in those with a suspected or known recurrence. The ACR 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Pulmonary Hypertension: 2022 Update.

Pulmonary hypertension may be idiopathic or related to a large variety of diseases. Various imaging examinations may be helpful in diagnosing and determining the etiology of pulmonary hypertension. Imaging examinations discussed in this document include chest radiography, ultrasound echocardiography, ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy, CT, MRI, right heart catheterization, and pulmonary angiography. The ACR 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 in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Cough.

Chronic cough is defined by a duration lasting at least 8 weeks. The most common causes of chronic cough include smoking-related lung disease, upper airway cough syndrome, asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis. The etiology of chronic cough in some patients may be difficult to localize to an isolated source and is often multifactorial. The complex pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and variable manifestations of chronic cough underscore the challenges faced by clinicians in the evaluation and management of these patients. Imaging plays a role in the initial evaluation, although there is a lack of high-quality evidence guiding which modalities are useful and at what point in time the clinical evaluation should be performed. 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 include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Significant incidental cardiac disease on thoracic CT: what the general radiologist needs to know.

OBJECTIVE: Incidental cardiac findings are often found on chest CT studies, some of which may be clinically significant. The objective of this pictorial review is to illustrate and describe the appearances and management of the most frequently encountered significant cardiac findings on non-electrocardiographically gated thoracic CT. Most radiologists will interpret multidetector chest CT and should be aware of the imaging appearances, significance, and the appropriate next management steps, when incidental significant cardiac disease is encountered on thoracic CT. CONCLUSION: This article reviews significant incidental cardiac findings which may be encountered on chest CT studies. After completing this review, the reader should not only be familiar with recognizing clinically significant cardiac findings seen on thoracic CT examinations but also have the confidence to direct their further management.

Designing a Curriculum for Professionalism and Ethics Within Radiology: Identifying Challenges and Expectations.

Although professionalism and ethics represent required competencies, they are more challenging than other competencies to design a curriculum for and teach. Reasons include variability in agreed definitions of professionalism within medicine and radiology. This competency is also framed differently whether as roles, duties, actions, skills, behavior, beliefs, and attitudes. Standardizing a curriculum in professionalism is difficult because each learner's (medical student/resident) professional experiences and interactions will be unique. Professionalism is intertwined throughout all (sub) specialties and areas and its teaching cannot occur in isolation as a standalone curriculum. In the past, professionalism was not emphasized enough or at all, with global (or no) assessments, with the potential effect of trainees not valuing it. Although we can teach it formally in the classroom and informally in small groups, much of professionalism is witnessed and learned as "hidden curricula". The formal, informal, and hidden curricula often contradict each other creating confusion, disillusion, and cynicism in trainees. The corporatization of medicine pressurizes us to increase efficiency (throughput) with less focus on aspects of professionalism that add value, creating a disjoint between what we do in practice and preach to trainees. Progressively, expectations for our curriculum include providing evidence for the impacts of our efforts on patient outcomes. Generational differences in the perception of professionalism and the increasingly diverse and multicultural society in which we live affects our interpretation of professionalism, which can add to confusion and misunderstanding. The objectives of this article are to outline challenges facing curriculum design in professionalism and to make suggestions to help educators avoid or overcome them.

Teaching and Assessing Professionalism in Radiology: Resources and Scholarly Opportunities to Contribute to Required Expectations.

Teaching and assessing trainees' professionalism now represents an explicit expectation for Accreditation Council Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiology programs. Challenges to meeting this expectation include variability in defining the construct of professionalism; limits of traditional teaching and assessment methods, used for competencies historically more prominent in medical education, for professionalism; and emerging expectations for credible and feasible professionalism teaching and assessment practices in the current context of health-care training and practice. This article identifies promising teaching resources and methods that can be used strategically to augment traditional teaching of the cognitive basis for professionalism, including role modeling, case-based scenarios, debriefing, simulations, narrative medicine (storytelling), guided discussions, peer-assisted learning, and reflective practice. This article also summarizes assessment practices intended to promote learning, as well as to inform how and when to assess trainees as their professional identities develop over time, settings, and autonomous practice, particularly in terms of measurable behaviors. This includes assessment tools (including mini observations, critical incident reports, and appreciative inquiry) for authentic assessment in the workplace; engaging multiple sources (self-, peer, other health professionals, and patients) in assessment; and intentional practices for trainees to take responsibility for seeking our actionable feedback and reflection. This article examines the emerging evidence of the feasibility and value added of assessment of medical competency milestones, including professionalism, coordinated by the Accreditation Council Graduate Medical Education in radiology and other medical specialties. Radiology has a strategic opportunity to contribute to scholarship and inform policies in professionalism teaching and assessment practices.

How to Perform a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Imaging Studies.

A systematic review is a comprehensive search, critical evaluation, and synthesis of all the relevant studies on a specific (clinical) topic that can be applied to the evaluation of diagnostic and screening imaging studies. It can be a qualitative or a quantitative (meta-analysis) review of available literature. A meta-analysis uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies. In this review, a 12-step approach to performing a systematic review (and meta-analysis) is outlined under the four domains: (1) Problem Formulation and Data Acquisition, (2) Quality Appraisal of Eligible Studies, (3) Statistical Analysis of Quantitative Data, and (4) Clinical Interpretation of the Evidence. This review is specifically geared toward the performance of a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (imaging) studies.

Teaching and Assessing Professionalism in Radiology Resident Education.

Radiologists in teaching hospitals and in practices with residents rotating through are involved in the education of their residents. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires evidence that trainees are taught and demonstrate competency not only in medical knowledge and in patient care-the historic focus of radiology education-but also in the so-called non-interpretative core competencies, which include professionalism and interpersonal skills. In addition to accreditation agencies, the prominent assessment practices represented by the American Board of Radiology core and certifying examinations for trainees, as well as Maintenance of Certification for practitioners, are planning to feature more non-interpretative competency assessment, including professionalism to a greater extent. Because professionalism was incorporated as a required competency in medical education as a whole, more clarity about the justification and expected content for teaching about competence in professionalism, as well as greater understanding and evidence about appropriate and effective teaching and assessment methods, have emerged. This article summarizes justifications and expectations for teaching and assessing professionalism in radiology residents and best practices on how to teach and evaluate professionalism that can be used by busy radiology faculty in their everyday practice supervising radiology residents.

The Evolution of Professionalism in Medicine and Radiology.

Professionalism and ethics are difficult to define, and it is often a case of "you know it when you see it." In recent years, there have been calls to renew the focus on professionalism and ethics and their teaching in the medical and allied professions, part precipitated by a perceived and probably real decline in doctors' professional values. Medical professionalism has evolved markedly in the last couple of centuries and continues to change today at a rapid pace, spurred by technological advances and generational change. The reasons to promote medical professionalism include regulatory requirements, aligning our professions' outcomes and behaviors, and the moral imperative that being professional is the right thing to do. Radiologists should emphasize, model, and teach professionalism to our colleagues, allied personnel, and trainees whenever opportunity permits. Medical students now receive teaching in professionalism and ethics throughout their training, and there is a need to continue training formally and informally during residency training. Faculty or those charged with teaching professionalism will need to first understand what constitutes medical professionalism, and here we attempt to define and outline what professionalism looks like in practice. The article concludes with a summary of the opportunities within radiology practice, with examples, for us to exhibit professional actions, values, and ideas.

Practical Approaches to Quality Improvement for Radiologists.

Continuous quality improvement is a fundamental attribute of high-performing health care systems. Quality improvement is an essential component of health care, with the current emphasis on adding value. It is also a regulatory requirement, with reimbursements increasingly being linked to practice performance metrics. Practice quality improvement efforts must be demonstrated for credentialing purposes and for certification of radiologists in practice. Continuous quality improvement must occur for radiologists to remain competitive in an increasingly diverse health care market. This review provides an introduction to the main approaches available to undertake practice quality improvement, which will be useful for busy radiologists. Quality improvement plays multiple roles in radiology services, including ensuring and improving patient safety, providing a framework for implementing and improving processes to increase efficiency and reduce waste, analyzing and depicting performance data, monitoring performance and implementing change, enabling personnel assessment and development through continued education, and optimizing customer service and patient outcomes. The quality improvement approaches and underlying principles overlap, which is not surprising given that they all align with good patient care. The application of these principles to radiology practices not only benefits patients but also enhances practice performance through promotion of teamwork and achievement of goals.

How to perform a critical appraisal of diagnostic tests: 7 steps.

The critically appraised topic (CAT) is a format in evidence-based practice for sharing information. A CAT is a standardized way of summarizing the most current research evidence focused on a pertinent clinical question. Its aim is to provide both a critique of the most up-to-date retrieved research and an indication of the clinical relevance of results. A clinical question is initially generated following a patient encounter, which leads to and directs a literature search to answer the clinical question. Studies obtained from the literature search are assigned a level of evidence. This allows the most valid and relevant articles to be selected and to be critically appraised. The results are summarized, and this information is translated into clinically useful procedures and processes.

Associations between presence of relevant information in referrals to radiology and prevalence rates in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess if the presence of information including the pretest probability (Wells score), other known risk factors, and symptoms given on referrals for computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography correlated with prevalence rates for pulmonary embolism (PE). Also, to evaluate for differences between a university and a regional hospital setting regarding patient characteristics, amount of relevant information provided on referrals, and prevalence rates for pulmonary embolism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all consecutive referrals (emergency room, inpatient, and outpatient) for CT performed on children and adults for suspected PE from two sites: a tertiary (university) hospital (site 1) and a secondary (regional) hospital (site 2) over a 5-year period. RESULTS: The overall prevalence rate was 510/3641 or 14% of all referrals. Significantly higher number of males had a positive CT compared to women (18% versus 12%, P < .001). Although no statistically significant relationship between a greater amount of relevant information on the referral and the probability for positive finding existed, a slight trend was noted (P = .09). In two categories, "hypoxia" and "signs of deep vein thrombosis," the presence of this information conferred a higher probability for pulmonary embolism, P < .001. In the categories, "chest pain," "malaise," and "smoker/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease", the absence of information conferred a higher probability for pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of relevant clinical information on the request did not correlate with prevalence rates, which may reflect a lack of documentation on the part of emergency physicians who may use a "gestalt" approach. Request forms likely did not capture all relevant patient risks and many factors may interact with each other, both positively and negatively. Pretest probability estimations were rarely performed, despite their inclusion in major society guidelines.