4.5 Article

Underreporting of vertebral fractures on routine chest radiography

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 182, 期 2, 页码 297-300

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.182.2.1820297

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and therefore undertreated. We determined the potential usefulness of chest radiography for detecting clinically important vertebral fractures by performing semiquantitative reviews and quantitative digital morphometry on 100 routine chest radiographs taken in the emergency department and comparing the yield of these independent reviews with official radiology reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred randomly selected chest radiographs of patients 60 years or older who presented to the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital.. were evaluated. Radiographs were selected without knowledge of the presenting complaint and.. were independently reviewed by two board-certified radiologists and a radiology resident. A validated semiquantitative method was used to assess lateral chest radiographs for vertebral fracture.. In addition, quantitative digital morphometry was undertaken. A clinically important vertebral fracture was defined as one that was at least moderate to severe (loss of height greater than or equal to 25%). RESULTS. Mean age of the population was 75 years, 47% were women, and 46% were admitted to the hospital. According to the reference radiologist, prevalence of moderate to severe vertebral fractures was 22%. Simple agreement was 87-88% among reviewers; kappa values were moderate (0.56-0.58). The greatest agreement was between the reference standard radiologist and quantitative digital morphometry (89% agreement; kappa = 0.67). Only 55% (12/22) of vertebral fractures we identified were mentioned in the official radiology reports. CONCLUSION. Chest radiography has potential as a screening tool for revealing previously undiagnosed vertebral fractures, although in this study only half of moderate to severe fractures that we identified were mentioned in official reports.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据