Faculty Bibliography

Despite imaging not being a tool for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis, there has been an increased number of chest computed tomography (CT) scans done worldwide. There are no pathognomonic CT features for COVID-19 pneumonia, as findings are also common in other infectious diseases and noninfectious aetiologies. Nonetheless, point-of-care physicians should be familiarized with the most common imaging presentations of the COVID-19. In this pictorial review, we have summarized the most reported imaging features of COVID-19 pneumonia, including possible differential diagnosis according to the CT finding.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) examinations ordered in the emergency department (ED) for abdominal complaints. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We reviewed 154 CTs and 154 US orders for appropriateness using evidence-based recommendations by the American College of Radiology. The sample was powered to show a prevalence of inappropriate orders of 25% with a margin of error of 7.5%. Findings in the final reports were compared to the initial clinical diagnosis classified in 4 categories: normal, compatible with initial diagnosis, alternative diagnosis, and inconclusive. We also evaluated the frequency in which a second imaging modality was ordered on the same visit. RESULTS:A total of 135 CT and 143 US examinations had complete clinical information to allow evaluation of order appropriateness. The rate of inappropriate orders was 36.3% for CT and 84.4% for US. The final report of appropriate orders was significantly more likely to demonstrate findings compatible with the initial diagnosis for both CT (76.7% vs 20.4%, P < 0.0001) and US (38.9% vs 14.4%, P = 0.0093). Inappropriately ordered CT scans were more likely to show no abnormalities (46.9 vs 16.3%, P = 0.0001). An additional imaging order with a secondary modality was requested in 20% of the inappropriate US orders, and 8.2% of the inappropriate CT orders. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The prevalence of inappropriate examinations in the ED was 36.3% for CT and 84.4% for US. Appropriately ordered exams were more likely to yield imaging findings compatible with the initial diagnosis for both modalities.

Patients with acute nonspecific chest pain and low probability for coronary disease remain an important clinical management dilemma. We focus on evidence for imaging, in an integrated decision-making setting. 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.