<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org">
<title>Radiology Evidence-based Practice</title>
<link>http://radiology.rsnajnls.org</link>
<description>Radiology RSS feed -- recent Evidence-based Practice articles</description>
<prism:eIssn>1527-1315</prism:eIssn>
<prism:publicationName>Radiology</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0033-8419</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/3/679?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/2/365?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/1/64?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/icons/banner/title.gif" />
</channel>

<image rdf:about="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/icons/banner/title.gif">
<title>Radiology</title>
<url>http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/icons/banner/title.gif</url>
<link>http://radiology.rsnajnls.org</link>
</image>

<item rdf:about="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/3/679?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Evidence-based Practice] Diagnostic Performance of 16- and 64-Section Spiral CT for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Assessment: Meta-Analysis]]></title>
<link>http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/3/679?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<P><B>Purpose:</B> To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of 16- and 64-section spiral computed tomography (CT) to help assess coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs).</P>
<P><B>Materials and Methods:</B> The MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and BioMed Central databases were searched for relevant original articles published up to May 2007. Major criteria for article inclusion were that it <I>(a)</I> used multisection CT as a diagnostic test for the assessment of significant lesions (occlusion or &gt;50% stenosis) of CABG, <I>(b)</I> used a 16- or 64-section scanner, and <I>(c)</I> used coronary angiography as the reference standard. After data extraction, the analysis was performed according to a random-effects model. Between-study statistical heterogeneity was also assessed by using the Cochran <I>Q</I> <SUP>2</SUP> test.</P>
<P><B>Results:</B> Of 158 screened articles, 15 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Graft assessability (including distal anastomosis) ranged from 78%&ndash;100% among all included studies (mean, 92.4%; 90% with 16- and 96% with 64-section CT; <I>P</I> &lt; .001). Statistical heterogeneity was observed for specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR), justifying the use of the random-effects model. The analysis, pooled from 15 studies (723 patients, 2023 CABGs), provided the following results for the assessment of graft obstruction (occlusion and &gt;50% stenosis): sensitivity, 97.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96%, 98.6%); specificity, 96.7% (95% CI: 95.6%, 97.5%); positive predictive value, 92.7% (95% CI: 90.5%, 94.6%); negative predictive value, 98.9% (95% CI: 98.2%, 99.4%); positive LR, 23.42 (95% CI: 13.69, 40.07); negative LR, 0.045 (95% CI: 0.028, 0.071); and diagnostic odds ratio, 780.32 (95% CI: 379.12, 1606.1).</P>
<P><B>Conclusion:</B> Multisection CT provided high accuracy for the evaluation of CABG obstruction in assessable conduits, and might be used as a noninvasive tool for the evaluation of suspected graft dysfunction in patients who are at high risk for complications from coronary angiography.</P>
<P>&copy; RSNA, 2008</P>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hamon, M., Lepage, O., Malagutti, P., Riddell, J. W., Morello, R., Agostini, D., Hamon, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-05-16</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1148/radiol.2473071132</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Evidence-based Practice] Diagnostic Performance of 16- and 64-Section Spiral CT for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Assessment: Meta-Analysis]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Radiological Society of North America</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>247</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>686</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>679</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Evidence-based Practice</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/2/365?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Evidence-based Practice] Developing a Sensitive Search Strategy in MEDLINE to Retrieve Studies on Assessment of the Diagnostic Performance of Imaging Techniques]]></title>
<link>http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/2/365?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<P><B>Purpose:</B> To prospectively develop a search strategy in MEDLINE for identifying studies on the diagnostic performance of any imaging modality, with maximized and minimized retrieval of relevant and irrelevant studies, respectively.</P>
<P><B>Materials and Methods:</B> Predefined inclusion criteria were used to conduct a hand search of two sets of radiologic journal articles for studies on assessment of the diagnostic performance of imaging techniques. These two sets of articles formed independent derivation and validation record sets for developing and evaluating the search strategy. The sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPVs) of search terms from the derivation reference-standard set of records were used to select terms and develop two components of the search strategy. The first component was used to identify any study (from the imaging literature) in which diagnostic test performance was assessed. The second component was used to identify studies of any imaging modality. The two components were combined in the final search strategy. The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the search strategy in the derivation and validation record sets were calculated.</P>
<P><B>Results:</B> The final search strategy had a sensitivity of 92.8%, a specificity of 58.5%, and a PPV of 25.1% for retrieval of the derivation set of records. Validation with an independent set of records gave a sensitivity of 91.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.1%, 95.1%), a specificity of 52.2% (95% CI: 49.2%, 55.2%), and a PPV of 25.1% (95% CI: 22.0%, 28.5%). Removal of irrelevant publication types further improved specificity and PPV in the validation set: to 77.6% (95% CI: 75.0%, 80.0%) and 40.9% (95% CI: 36.2%, 45.7%), respectively. The volume of imaging literature retrieved from MEDLINE by using the described search strategy has tripled since 1975.</P>
<P><B>Conclusion:</B> A sensitive search strategy to identify studies of the diagnostic performance of any imaging test was developed and validated. The retrieval estimates of this strategy in MEDLINE are adequate to develop a register of studies.</P>
<P>Supplemental material:<BR><I><INTER-REF LOCATOR="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2472070101/DC1" LOCATOR-TYPE="URL">http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2472070101/DC1</INTER-REF></I><BR><I><INTER-REF LOCATOR="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2472070101/DC2" LOCATOR-TYPE="URL">http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2472070101/DC2</INTER-REF></I></P>
<P>&copy; RSNA, 2008</P>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Astin, M. P., Brazzelli, M. G., Fraser, C. M., Counsell, C. E., Needham, G., Grimshaw, J. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1148/radiol.2472070101</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Evidence-based Practice] Developing a Sensitive Search Strategy in MEDLINE to Retrieve Studies on Assessment of the Diagnostic Performance of Imaging Techniques]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Radiological Society of North America</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>247</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>373</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>365</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Evidence-based Practice</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/1/64?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Evidence-based Practice] Inflammatory Bowel Disease Diagnosed with US, MR, Scintigraphy, and CT: Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies]]></title>
<link>http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/short/247/1/64?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<P><B>Purpose:</B> To compare, by performing a meta-analysis, the accuracies of ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).</P>
<P><B>Materials and Methods:</B> MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on the accuracy of US, MR imaging, scintigraphy, CT, and PET, as compared with a predefined reference standard, in the diagnosis of IBD. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated on per-patient and per-bowel-segment bases by using a bivariate random-effects model.</P>
<P><B>Results:</B> Thirty-three studies, from a search that yielded 1406 articles, were included in the final analysis. Mean sensitivity estimates for the diagnosis of IBD on a per-patient basis were high and not significantly different among the imaging modalities (89.7%, 93.0%, 87.8%, and 84.3% for US, MR imaging, scintigraphy, and CT, respectively). Mean per-patient specificity estimates were 95.6% for US, 92.8% for MR imaging, 84.5% for scintigraphy, and 95.1% for CT; the only significant difference in values was that between scintigraphy and US (<I>P</I> = .009). Mean per-bowel-segment sensitivity estimates were lower: 73.5% for US, 70.4% for MR imaging, 77.3% for scintigraphy, and 67.4% for CT. Mean per-bowel-segment specificity estimates were 92.9% for US, 94.0% for MR imaging, 90.3% for scintigraphy, and 90.2% for CT. CT proved to be significantly less sensitive and specific compared with scintigraphy (<I>P</I> = .006) and MR imaging (<I>P</I> = .037)</P>
<P><B>Conclusion:</B> No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy among the imaging techniques were observed. Because patients with IBD often need frequent reevaluation of disease status, use of a diagnostic modality that does not involve the use of ionizing radiation is preferable.</P>
<P>Supplemental material: <BR><I><INTER-REF LOCATOR="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/247/1/64/DC1" LOCATOR-TYPE="URL">http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/247/1/64/DC1</INTER-REF></I><BR><I><INTER-REF LOCATOR="http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/247/1/64/DC2" LOCATOR-TYPE="URL">http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/247/1/64/DC2</INTER-REF></I></P>
<P>&copy; RSNA, 2008</P>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Horsthuis, K., Bipat, S., Bennink, R. J., Stoker, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-03-27</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1148/radiol.2471070611</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Evidence-based Practice] Inflammatory Bowel Disease Diagnosed with US, MR, Scintigraphy, and CT: Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Radiological Society of North America</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>247</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>79</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>64</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Evidence-based Practice</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>