Pragya Ahuja Dang MBBS, Presenter: Nothing to Disclose

Mannudeep Karanvirsingh Kalra MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Thomas Schultz, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Markus Stout, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Paul Lemay, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Keith J. Dreyer DO, PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Clinical Trials Reader, Perceptics, LLC Medical Advisor, Agfa-Gevaert Group Medical Advisor, Fuji Photo Film Co, Ltd Medical Advisor, General Electric Company Medical Advisor, McKesson Corporation Medical Advisor, AuntMinnie.com Medical Advisor, AMICAS, Inc Medical Advisor, Dynamic Imaging, LLC Medical Advisor, Ascom Holding AG Medical Advisor, Bracco Group Medical Advisor, Merge Healthcare Medical Advisor, Emageon Inc Medical Advisor, RCG HealthCare Consulting Consultant, The Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic Consultant, Valley Radiology Medical Associates, Inc Medical Advisor, Information Systems Consultants, Inc Medical Advisor, Siemens AG Medical Advisor, Barco nv Medical Advisor, Hue AS Medical Advisor, Planar Systems, Inc Medical Advisor, Vital Images, Inc Medical Advisor, Commissure, Inc Medical Advisor, TeraRecon, Inc Medical Advisor, Mercury Computer Systems, Inc Medical Advisor, IBM Corporation Medical Advisor, Hewlett-Packard Company Medical Advisor, EMC Corp Medical Advisor, Phase Forward Incorporated Medical Advisor, Winchester Systems, Inc Medical Advisor, Dell Inc Medical Advisor, Eastman Kodak Company Medical Advisor, Amirsys, Inc Medical Advisor, Reed Elsevier Editorial Board, Diagnostic Imaging Editorial Board, AuntMinnie.com Editorial Board, Imaging Economics Author, Springer Science+Business Media Deutschland GmbH

Recommendation rates for further imaging tests can be important predictors of radiology practice. We performed analysis of over 5 million radiology reports from different imaging tests for recommendation rates and correlated them with patient demographics.

A database from a single tertiary health care center over eleven years (January 1995 to March 2007) was created with reports of CT (n=806199), MR (n=375299), fluoroscopy (n=82696), nuclear medicine (n= 193437), ultrasound (n=595712), radiography (n=2780248) and others including angiography (n=330009) (total n=5172600). A clinical data mining and analysis program was used for classifying unstructured radiology reports into those with (R+) and those without (R-) recommendations for further imaging. Data regarding patients’ age were classified into seven age groups (0-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-65, >65 years). Patient’s gender was also recorded from each radiology report.

There was a significant difference in the rates of recommendations in different age groups, varying between 9.2% (11-20 years) and 15.7% (>65 years) (p0.05).

There are considerable differences between recommendation trends for different imaging modalities. Unfortunately, the more expensive imaging exams such as CT, MRI and ultrasound are responsible for higher number of requests for further imaging.

Recommendation trends in our study cohort suggest that specific modalities and age group of patients can be targeted to assess the reasons for higher recommendations and devise strategies to reduce the existing recommendation rates for further imaging tests.

Dang, P, Kalra, M, Schultz, T, Stout, M, Lemay, P, Dreyer, K, Effect of Patient Demographics on Recommendation Rates of Different Imaging Modalities.  Radiological Society of North America 2007 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 25 - November 30, 2007 ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2007/5011418.html