Three-Day Dietary Manipulation in Multiple Sclerosis: Exercise and Fatigue Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In persons with multiple sclerosis (MS), the effect of nutrition on exercise performance and fatigue remains unknown. The objective was to determine whether a 3-day diet high in triglycerides (FAT) compared with a 3-day diet high in carbohydrates (CARB) would improve fatigue and exercise performance in persons with MS. METHODS: A randomized controlled crossover design was incorporated to study FAT versus CARB on submaximal cycling endurance (60% of peak oxygen consumption), substrate utilization, and fatigue in 12 persons with mild-to-moderate MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale score, 2.0-5.0) and 12 age- and sex-matched controls. RESULTS: There were no differences in cycling time between diets in either group (P = .29). The MS group had no changes in fatigue between diets (P = .64); the control group demonstrated increased total mental fatigue after FAT (P = .05). The control group increased carbohydrate oxidation by 24% at rest and 13% during exercise after CARB. Similarly, the control group significantly increased fat oxidation after FAT by 22% at rest and 68% during exercise (P = .01). These changes were not seen in the MS group. Compared with controls, persons with MS oxidized approximately 50% less fat during exercise after FAT (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Neither CARB nor FAT altered submaximal exercise performance or baseline fatigue in the MS group. The results suggest that persons with MS are unable to adapt to dietary changes and oxidize fatty acids as efficiently as controls.

Computed tomography findings of metabolic syndrome in patients with acute colonic diverticulitis.

INTRODUCTION: Many factors associated with colonic diverticulitis are also part of the clinical definition of the metabolic syndrome. Computed tomography (CT) is commonly performed in symptomatic patients, such as those with suspected or known acute diverticulitis, and could add additional value for the health of these patients by identifying and reporting CT biomarkers of metabolic syndrome, if present and detectable. The purpose of this study was to identify CT biomarkers of metabolic syndrome in patients with acute colonic diverticulitis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 243 patients (mean-60 yrs, M:F:126:117) diagnosed with colonic diverticulitis on CT between March 2015 and March 2017 for hepatic steatosis, vascular calcifications, abdominal diameters and fat volumes. Criteria of metabolic syndrome were obtained from medical records. Differences in imaging biomarkers were compared using chi-square comparisons stratified by metabolic syndrome, abdominal diameter and fat volume. RESULTS: Of 243 patients, 33% demonstrated hepatic steatosis and 71% atherosclerotic vascular calcifications on CT. 28% met criteria for metabolic syndrome. Patients with metabolic syndrome had higher occurrence of hepatic steatosis, sagittal diameter ≥ 35 cm, visceral fat > 5000 cm3 and subcutaneous fat > 8300 cm3 (P < 0.05), but not vascular calcifications (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CT biomarkers of metabolic syndrome are commonly encountered in patients with acute diverticulitis. Recognizing and reporting these findings can guide towards further evaluation for metabolic syndrome.

Impact of Nutritional Intake on Function in People with Mild-to-Moderate Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess the associations between nutrition and ambulation, daily activity, quality of life (QOL), and fatigue in individuals with mild-to-moderate disability with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: This cross-sectional pilot study included 20 ambulatory adult volunteers with MS (14 women and 6 men; mean ± SD age, 57.9 ± 10.2 years; mean ± SD Expanded Disability Status Scale score = 4.1 ± 1.8). Primary outcome variables included dietary assessment and the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Secondary measures included the Timed 25-Foot Walk test, Timed Up and Go test, daily activity, and three self-report questionnaires: the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale, the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale. RESULTS: Significant correlations were seen between the percentage of diet comprising fats and the 6MWT (r = 0.51, P = .02) and the physical functioning component of the SF-36 (r = 0.47, P = .03). The percentage of carbohydrates was significantly correlated with the 6MWT (r = -0.43, P = .05), daily activity (r = -0.59, P = .005), and the physical functioning component of the SF-36 (r = -0.47, P = .03). Cholesterol, folate, iron, and magnesium were significantly positively correlated with the physical functioning component of the SF-36 and the 6MWT. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate better ambulation, daily function, and QOL with increased fat intake, decreased carbohydrate intake, and increased intake of the micronutrients cholesterol, folate, iron, and magnesium in people with mild-to-moderate MS. This pilot study highlights the potential impact of diet on function and QOL in MS.

Walking disability measures in multiple sclerosis patients: Correlations with MRI-derived global and microstructural damage.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between walking disability in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and their macro- and microstructural MRI-derived measures still remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the correlations between walking disability and MRI-derived lesion, atrophy, and microstructural/axonal integrity outcomes. METHODS: Seventy-one (71) MS patients were clinically examined, the expanded timed get-up and go (ETGUG), and timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) tests were assessed. Additionally, the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) was obtained. Normalized brain (NBV), gray matter (GMV), white matter (WMV), cortex (CV), and deep GM (DGM) volumes, as well as lesion volumes (LV) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) scalar maps of fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, radial diffusivity, and axial diffusivity were calculated. Spearman correlation, partial correlation and stepwise regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: T25FW and ETGUG were associated with T2-LV (p < .001), global (NBV, p < .001), tissue-specific (GMV and CV, p < .001) and regional (DGM p < .001; and thalamus p < .001) volumes. The ETGUG remained correlated with T1-LV, GMV, CV and total DGM volume (all p < .001) after age, sex, and disease duration adjustment. The WMV was not associated with walking disability. Similarly, DTI measures did not show significant association with the walking tests. The regression analysis outlined DMG volume as best predictor of T25FW (Adj R2 = 0.231, standardized ß = -0.435, and p = .001), and CV for ETGUG (Adj R2 = 0.176, standardized ß = -0.417, and p = .004). SDMT was associated with both T25FW (p = .004) and ETGUG (p = .013). CONCLUSION: Despite the low disability levels, walking as measured by T25FW and ETGUG, is largely explained by the loss of cortical and nuclei specific GM volumes.

Validity and Reliability of Four Clinical Gait Measures in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The gold standards for assessing ambulation are the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW) test. In relation with these measures, we assessed the reliability and validity of four clinical gait measures: the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), the 2-Minute Walk Test (2MWT), and the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Patient self-report of gait was also assessed using the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12). METHODS: Individuals 20 years or older with a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and an EDSS score of 2.0 to 6.5 completed the MSWS-12, T25FW test, TUG test, DGI, 2MWT, and 6MWT. All the tests were repeated 2 weeks later at the same time of day to establish their reliability and concurrent validity. Predictive validity was established using the EDSS. RESULTS: Forty-two patients with MS were included. All measures showed high test-retest reliability. The TUG test, 2MWT, and 6MWT were significantly correlated with the T25FW test (Spearman ρ = -0.902, -0.919, and -0.905, respectively). The EDSS was also significantly correlated with all the walking tests. The MSWS-12 demonstrated the highest correlation to the EDSS (ρ = 0.788). CONCLUSIONS: The TUG test, the DGI, the 2MWT, and the 6MWT exhibited strong psychometric properties and were found to be significant predictors of the EDSS score. Use of these tests to prospectively monitor the effects of medical and rehabilitation treatment should be considered in the comprehensive care of patients with MS.

A Framework of Care in Multiple Sclerosis, Part 2: Symptomatic Care and Beyond.

The Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC) convened a Framework Taskforce composed of a multidisciplinary group of clinicians and researchers to examine and evaluate the current models of care in multiple sclerosis (MS). The methodology of this project included analysis of a needs assessment survey and an extensive literature review. The outcome of this work is a two-part continuing education series of articles. Part 1, published previously, covered the updated disease phenotypes of MS along with recommendations for the use of disease-modifying therapies. Part 2, presented herein, reviews the variety of symptoms and potential complications of MS. Mobility impairment, spasticity, pain, fatigue, bladder/bowel/sexual dysfunction, cognitive dysfunction, and neuropsychiatric issues are examined, and both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions are described. Because bladder and bowel symptoms substantially affect health-related quality of life, detailed information about elimination dysfunction is provided. In addition, a detailed discussion about mental health and cognitive dysfunction in people with MS is presented. Part 2 concludes with a focus on the role of rehabilitation in MS. The goal of this work is to facilitate the highest levels of independence or interdependence, function, and quality of life for people with MS.

CME/CNE Article: A Framework of Care in Multiple Sclerosis, Part 1: Updated Disease Classification and Disease-Modifying Therapy Use in Specific Circumstances.

Activity Available Online: To access the article, post-test, and evaluation online, go to http://www.cmscscholar.org. TARGET AUDIENCE: The target audience for this activity is physicians, physician assistants, nursing professionals, and other health-care providers involved in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Apply new information about MS to a comprehensive individualized treatment plan for patients with MSIntegrate the team approach into long-term planning in order to optimize rehabilitation care of patients with MSAccreditation Statement: This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint providership of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC), Nurse Practitioner Alternatives (NPA), and Delaware Media Group. The CMSC is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The CMSC designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Nurse Practitioner Alternatives (NPA) is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. NPA designates this enduring material for 1.0 Continuing Nursing Education credit. Laurie Scudder, DNP, NP, has served as Nurse Planner for this activity. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures: Francois Bethoux, MD, Editor in Chief of the International Journal of MS Care (IJMSC), has served as Physician Planner for this activity. He has received royalties from Springer Publishing and has received intellectual property rights from Biogen. Laurie Scudder, DNP, NP, has served as Nurse Planner for this activity. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Scott D. Newsome, DO, MSCS (author), has served on scientific advisory boards for Biogen, Genentech, Novartis, and Genzyme, and has performed contracted research (institution received funds) for Biogen, Genentech, and Novartis. Philip J. Aliotta, MD, MSHA, CHCQM, FACS (author), has served on speakers' bureaus for Astellas Pharma, Actavis, Augmenix, and Allergan and has performed contracted research for Allergan. Jacquelyn Bainbridge, PharmD (author), has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Susan E. Bennett, PT, DPT, EdD, NCS, MSCS (author), has served on speakers' bureaus for Acorda Therapeutics, Biogen, and Medtronic; has received consulting fees from and performed contracted research for Acorda Therapeutics; and is chair of the Clinical Events Committee at Innovative Technologies. Gary Cutter, PhD (author), has participated on Data and Safety Monitoring Committees for AMO Pharma, Apotek, Gilead Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Pharmaceuticals, Modigenetech/Prolor, Merck, Merck/Pfizer, Opko Biologics, Neuren, Sanofi-Aventis, Reata Pharmaceuticals, Receptos/Celgene, Teva Pharmaceuticals, NHLBI (Protocol Review Committee), and NICHD (OPRU Oversight Committee); has received consulting fees from and/or served on speakers' bureaus and scientific advisory boards for Cerespir, Genzyme, Genentech, Innate Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Klein-Buendel Incorporated, MedImmune, Medday, Nivalis, Novartis, Opexa Therapeutics, Roche, Savara, Somahlution, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Transparency Life Sciences, and TG Therapeutics; and is President of Pythagoras, Inc., a private consulting company located in Birmingham, AL. Kaylan Fenton, CRNP, APNP, MSCN (author), has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Fred Lublin, MD (author), has received consulting fees/fees for non-CME/CE activities from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Teva Neuroscience, Actelion, Sanofi/Genzyme, Acorda, Questcor/Mallinckrodt, Roche/Genentech, MedImmune, Osmotica, Xenoport, Receptos/Celgene, Forward Pharma, Akros, TG Therapeutics, AbbVie, Toyama, Amgen, Medday, Atara Biotherapeutics, Polypharma, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Revalesio, Coronado Bioscience, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has served on speakers' bureaus for Genentech/Roche and Genzyme/Sanofi; has performed contracted research for Acorda, Biogen, Novartis, Teva Neuroscience, Genzyme, Xenoport, and Receptos; is the co-chief editor of Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders; and has an ownership interest in Cognition Pharmaceuticals. Dorothy Northrop, MSW, ACSW (author), has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. David Rintell, EdD (author), has received consulting fees from Novartis and has served as a patient education speaker for Teva Neuroscience. He started as a salaried employee of Sanofi Genzyme in November 2015. Dr. Rintell's work on this project was completed before he became a salaried employee of Sanofi Genzyme.Bryan D. Walker, MHS, PA-C (author), has served on scientific advisory boards for EMD Serono and Sanofi Genzyme and owns stock in Biogen. Megan Weigel, DNP, ARNP-C, MSCN (author), has received consulting fees from Mallinckrodt, Genzyme, and Genentech, and has served on speakers' bureaus for Bayer Corp, Acorda Therapeutics, Teva Neuroscience, Biogen, Mallinckrodt, Genzyme, Novartis, and Pfizer. Kathleen Zackowski, PhD, OTR, MSCS (author), has performed contracted research for Acorda Therapeutics. David E. Jones, MD (author), has received consulting fees from Biogen and Novartis, and has performed contracted research for Biogen. One anonymous peer reviewer for the IJMSC has performed contracted research (institution received funds) for Novartis, Chugai, and Biogen. Another reviewer has received consulting fees and served on speakers' bureaus for Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Genentech, EMD Serono, and Novartis. The third reviewer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Lori Saslow, MS (medical writer), has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The staff at the IJMSC, CMSC, NPA, and Delaware Media Group who are in a position to influence content have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Note: Disclosures listed for authors are those applicable at the time of their work on this project and within 12 months previously. Financial relationships for some authors may have changed in the interval between the time of their work on this project and publication of the article. Funding/Support: Funding for the Framework of Care consensus conference was provided by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals. Method of Participation: Release Date: December 1, 2016 Valid for Credit Through: December 1, 2017 In order to receive CME/CNE credit, participants must: Review the CME/CNE information, including learning objectives and author disclosures.Study the educational content.Complete the post-test and evaluation, which are available at http://www.cmscscholar.org. Statements of Credit are awarded upon successful completion of the post-test with a passing score of >70% and the evaluation. There is no fee to participate in this activity. Disclosure of Unlabeled Use: This CME/CNE activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not approved by the FDA. CMSC, NPA, and Delaware Media Group do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications. The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of CMSC, NPA, or Delaware Media Group. Disclaimer: Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any medications, diagnostic procedures, or treatments discussed in this publication should not be used by clinicians or other health-care professionals without first evaluating their patients' conditions, considering possible contraindications or risks, reviewing any applicable manufacturer's product information, and comparing any therapeutic approach with the recommendations of other authorities.

Differing Interpretations of Report Terminology Between Primary Care Physicians and Radiologists.

PURPOSE: The lexicons of the radiologist and the referring physician may not be synonymous, which could cause confusion with radiology reporting. To further explore this possibility, we surveyed radiologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their respective interpretations of report terminology. METHODS: A survey was distributed to radiologists and PCPs through an internal listserv. Respondents were asked to provide an interpretation of the statistical likelihood of the presence of metastatic disease based upon the terminology used within a hypothetical radiology report. Ten common modifying terms were evaluated. Potential responses for the statistical likelihoods included 0%-25%, 26%-50%, 51%-75%, 76%-99%, and 100%. Differences between the groups were evaluated using either a χ2 test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: The phrases "diagnostic for metastatic disease" and "represents metastatic disease" were selected by a high percentage of both groups as conferring a 100% likelihood of "true metastatic disease." The phrases "cannot exclude metastatic disease" and "may represent metastatic disease" were selected by a high proportion of both groups as conferring a 0% likelihood of "true metastatic disease." Radiologists assigned a higher statistical likelihood to the terms "diagnostic for metastatic disease" (P = .016), "represents metastatic disease" (P = .004), "suspicious for metastatic disease" (P = .04), "consistent with metastatic disease" (P < .0001), and "compatible with metastatic disease" (P = .003). CONCLUSION: A qualitative agreement among radiologists and PCPs exists concerning the significance of the evaluated terminology, although radiologists assigned a higher statistical likelihood than PCPs for several phrases.

Best Practices for Intrathecal Baclofen Therapy: Screening Test.

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal baclofen (ITB) screening assesses response to a test dose of ITB on spasticity and function and identifies adverse reactions. METHOD: An expert panel consulted on best practices after conducting an extensive literature search and conducting an online survey. RESULTS: A successful trial may confirm predetermined goals, which may include improved mobility/positioning, decreased time/improved independence for activities, less home exercise, better wheelchair tolerance, decreased caregiver time, improved sleep, and reduced pain, or may modify goals and expectations. Individuals should not be tested in the presence of active medical issues (e.g., MS exacerbations, active urinary tract infection, nonhealing wounds). Oral antispasmodics can be weaned before trial if a goal is to eliminate them. The standard baclofen test dose is a 50-mcg bolus, 25 mcg in very small children or patients who rely on spasticity for mobility. Patients unresponsive to the standard dose may require 75 mcg or 100 mcg; 24 hours should elapse between bolus doses. Cardiopulmonary parameters should be checked frequently during the first two hours postinjection, and spasticity measures assessed at least twice within four hours. Observation continues until the patient is stable and recovers from hypertonia. Adverse events include spinal headaches, nausea/vomiting, urinary retention, hypotension, seizures, drowsiness/sedation, respiratory depression, and coma. Before implantation, team members must discuss starting dose, drug concentration, delivery mode, pump size and location, and catheter tip placement. Patients/caregivers should understand the commitment necessary for ITB therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Screening helps identify appropriate candidates for ITB.

Selecting Rehabilitation Outcome Measures for People with Multiple Sclerosis.

Despite the well-known benefits of using standardized outcome measures (OMs) in clinical practice, a variety of barriers interfere with their use. In particular, rehabilitation therapists lack sufficient knowledge in selecting appropriate OMs. The challenge is compounded when working with people with multiple sclerosis (MS) owing to heterogeneity of the patient population and symptom variability in individual patients. To help overcome these barriers, the American Physical Therapy Association appointed the Multiple Sclerosis Outcome Measures Task Force to review and make evidence-based recommendations for OM use in clinical practice, education, and research specific to people with MS. Sixty-three OMs were reviewed based on their clinical utility, psychometric properties, and a consensus evaluation of the appropriateness of use for people with MS. We sought to illustrate use of the recommendations for two cases. The first case involves a 43-year-old man with new-onset problems after an exacerbation. The second case pertains to an outpatient clinic interested in assessing the effectiveness of their MS rehabilitation program. For each case, clinicians identified areas that were important to assess and various factors deemed important for OM selection. Criteria were established and used to assist in OM selection. In both cases, the described processes narrowed the selection of OMs and assisted with choosing the most appropriate ones. The recommendations, in addition to the processes described in these two cases, can be used by clinicians in any setting working with patients with MS across the disability spectrum.

Creating a Patient-Centered Radiology Practice Through the Establishment of a Diagnostic Radiology Consultation Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to assess the feasibility of and to create a referral mechanism for a diagnostic radiology consultation clinic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A pilot program was instituted with patients from a single primary care clinic over a 3-week period. Patients with findings of common problems at routine imaging, such as atherosclerosis, emphysema, and hepatic steatosis, were eligible to participate. As the patients arrived for their routine primary care visits, office staff informed them of the opportunity to formally meet with a radiologist to review their most recent imaging findings. The office staff of the primary care clinic then contacted the radiologist covering the diagnostic radiology consultation clinic to schedule a consultation. A survey was administered before and after the session. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients participated (88% participation rate). Participants rated the consultation as very helpful (mean, 4.8 on 1-5 scale), and all participants would take the opportunity to review studies with the radiologist again. Significantly more patients preferred the involvement of the radiologist in communicating the results of an imaging examination after the consultation compared with before the consultation (p = 0.001). After the consultation session, patients had significantly improved understanding of a radiologist's role (p = 0.004), and all participants were able to correctly identify the radiologist as a physician who interprets medical images. CONCLUSION: A referral mechanism for a diagnostic radiology consultation clinic can be effectively integrated into the everyday workflow of both the referring physician and the radiologist. The consultations are useful to patients and help to increase their awareness of the role of the radiologist.

Assessment of upper extremity function in multiple sclerosis: review and opinion.

Upper extremity (UE) dysfunction may be present in up to ~80% of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), although its importance may be under-recognized relative to walking impairment, which is the hallmark symptom of MS. Upper extremity dysfunction affects independence and can impact the ability to use walking aids. Under-recognition of UE dysfunction may result in part from limited availability of performance-based and patient self-report measures that are validated for use in MS and that can be readily incorporated into clinical practice for screening and regularly scheduled assessments. In addition to the 9-Hole Peg Test, which is part of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite, there are several performance-based measures that are generally used in the rehabilitation setting. These measures include the Box and Block Test, the Action Research Arm Test, the Test d'Evaluation de la performance des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Agées, and the Jebsen-Taylor Test of Hand Function. Several of these measures were developed for use in stroke, although in contrast to stroke, which is characterized by unilateral dysfunction, UE impairment in MS is generally bilateral, and should be assessed as such. Similarly, patient-reported UE measures are available, including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and its shorter version, QuickDASH, the Manual Ability Measure, and ABILHAND, although none has been psychometrically validated for MS. Recently, item response theory was used to develop a Neuro-QOL (Quality of Life) UE measure and a Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System UE measure; neither of these have demonstrated sensitivity to change, limiting their use for longitudinal assessment. Consequently, although work is still needed to develop and validate performance-based and patient-reported measures of UE function that are suitable for use in daily MS clinical practice, currently available UE measures can be recommended for incorporation into MS management, albeit with an understanding of their limitations.

Structured feedback from referring physicians: a novel approach to quality improvement in radiology reporting.

OBJECTIVE: There is considerable interest in improving radiology reporting practices through peer review, and the inclusion of structured feedback from referring physicians may improve this process. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the feasibility of this type of novel peer-review system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five referring physicians from our institution participated as reviewers. Reports from abdominal CT, chest CT, brain MRI, and abdominal ultrasound were eligible for review if the indication was "abdominal pain," "shortness of breath," "headache," and "pain," respectively. Reports were excluded if the examinations were normal or ordered as follow-up. Forty-eight reports (12 from each group) were then selected at random and distributed to the referring physicians along with the clinical scenario and an evaluation form for each examination. RESULTS: The reports were found to be clinically useful (average, 3.8 on a 1-5 scale), allowing for good confidence in clinical decision making (average, 3.7). The most common problems were unclear language, typographical errors, and reports that did not answer the clinical question. Of the reports, 35.4% contained recommendations for further diagnosis or treatment, and 84.7% of these recommendations were deemed clinically appropriate. The participating physicians thought that the results of 31.2% of the examinations should have been directly communicated to the ordering provider. CONCLUSION: Radiology reports and recommendations were clinically useful, even though problems with language, typographical errors, answering the clinical question, and direct communication of examination results were identified. Structured feedback from referring physicians is a novel approach to the peer-review process that may identify problems that go unnoticed by the radiologist, thereby improving reporting practices.

Recent measures to improve radiology reporting: perspectives from primary care physicians.

PURPOSE: There is considerable interest in improving radiology reporting practices. It has been suggested recently that reporting practices could be improved by more direct involvement of radiologists in delivering results to patients and by making clear recommendations within the radiology report. The opinions of primary care physicians about these initiatives are not well known. The authors surveyed primary care physicians to better understand their views. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to 229 primary care physicians through an internal list server, and responses were collected confidentially. RESULTS: There were 100 responses (a 43.6% response rate). The majority of respondents were satisfied with radiology reporting and recommendations in general. Ninety-five percent of respondents felt that ordering physicians should deliver the results of examinations. No respondents felt that radiologists should deliver results directly to patients. Ninety-four percent of respondents felt medicolegally obligated by recommendations made by radiologists within their reports. Twenty-three percent of respondents felt more medicolegally obligated if the recommendation is set apart from the clinical impression, while 58% of respondents felt less medicolegally obligated if qualifying language is added to the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians prefer to deliver the results of examinations themselves and feel medicolegally obligated by recommendations within radiology reports, even though this seems to be influenced by the wording and location of the recommendations within reports. Radiologists should consider these factors when contemplating changes in reporting practices.