Evidence-based radiology

Why and how?

Francesco Sardanelli, Myriam G. Hunink, Fiona Jane Gilbert, Giovanni Di Leo, Gabriel P. Krestin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To provide an overview of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in relation to radiology and to define a policy for adoption of this principle in the European radiological community.

Results: Starting from Sackett’s definition of EBM we illustrate the top-down and bottom-up approaches to EBM as well as EBM’s limitations. Delayed diffusion and peculiar features of evidence-based radiology (EBR) are defined with emphasis on the need to shift from the demonstration of the increasing ability to see more and better, to the demonstration of a significant change in treatment planning or, at best, of a significant gain in patient outcome. The “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle is thought as a dimension of EBR while EBR is proposed as part of the core curriculum of radiology residency. Moreover, we describe the process of health technology assessment in radiology with reference to the six-level scale of hierarchy of studies on diagnostic tests, the main sources of bias in studies on diagnostic performance, and levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Oxford, UK) as well as the approach proposed by the GRADE working group. Problems and opportunities offered by evidence-based guidelines in radiology are considered. Finally, we suggest nine points to be actioned by the ESR in order to promote EBR.

Conclusion: Radiology will benefit greatly from the improvement in practice that will result from adopting this more rigorous approach to all aspects of our work.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-15
Number of pages15
JournalEuropean Radiology
Volume20
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2010

Keywords

  • evidence-based medicine
  • evidence-based radiology
  • ALARA
  • health technology assessment
  • degrees of recommendations
  • evidence-based-medicine
  • diagnostic-imaging technology
  • clinical-practice guidelines
  • cost-effectiveness analysis
  • randomized-trial
  • quality
  • radiation
  • accuracy
  • strength
  • knee

Cite this

Sardanelli, F., Hunink, M. G., Gilbert, F. J., Di Leo, G., & Krestin, G. P. (2010). Evidence-based radiology: Why and how? European Radiology, 20(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1574-4

Evidence-based radiology : Why and how? / Sardanelli, Francesco; Hunink, Myriam G.; Gilbert, Fiona Jane; Di Leo, Giovanni; Krestin, Gabriel P.

In: European Radiology, Vol. 20, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 1-15.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sardanelli, F, Hunink, MG, Gilbert, FJ, Di Leo, G & Krestin, GP 2010, 'Evidence-based radiology: Why and how?', European Radiology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1574-4
Sardanelli F, Hunink MG, Gilbert FJ, Di Leo G, Krestin GP. Evidence-based radiology: Why and how? European Radiology. 2010 Jan;20(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1574-4
Sardanelli, Francesco ; Hunink, Myriam G. ; Gilbert, Fiona Jane ; Di Leo, Giovanni ; Krestin, Gabriel P. / Evidence-based radiology : Why and how?. In: European Radiology. 2010 ; Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 1-15.
@article{ec508a035a8c42f7be0a4e2e14e94cbf,
title = "Evidence-based radiology: Why and how?",
abstract = "Purpose: To provide an overview of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in relation to radiology and to define a policy for adoption of this principle in the European radiological community. Results: Starting from Sackett’s definition of EBM we illustrate the top-down and bottom-up approaches to EBM as well as EBM’s limitations. Delayed diffusion and peculiar features of evidence-based radiology (EBR) are defined with emphasis on the need to shift from the demonstration of the increasing ability to see more and better, to the demonstration of a significant change in treatment planning or, at best, of a significant gain in patient outcome. The “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle is thought as a dimension of EBR while EBR is proposed as part of the core curriculum of radiology residency. Moreover, we describe the process of health technology assessment in radiology with reference to the six-level scale of hierarchy of studies on diagnostic tests, the main sources of bias in studies on diagnostic performance, and levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Oxford, UK) as well as the approach proposed by the GRADE working group. Problems and opportunities offered by evidence-based guidelines in radiology are considered. Finally, we suggest nine points to be actioned by the ESR in order to promote EBR. Conclusion: Radiology will benefit greatly from the improvement in practice that will result from adopting this more rigorous approach to all aspects of our work.",
keywords = "evidence-based medicine, evidence-based radiology, ALARA, health technology assessment, degrees of recommendations, evidence-based-medicine, diagnostic-imaging technology, clinical-practice guidelines, cost-effectiveness analysis, randomized-trial, quality, radiation, accuracy, strength, knee",
author = "Francesco Sardanelli and Hunink, {Myriam G.} and Gilbert, {Fiona Jane} and {Di Leo}, Giovanni and Krestin, {Gabriel P.}",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00330-009-1574-4",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "1--15",
journal = "European Radiology",
issn = "0938-7994",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evidence-based radiology

T2 - Why and how?

AU - Sardanelli, Francesco

AU - Hunink, Myriam G.

AU - Gilbert, Fiona Jane

AU - Di Leo, Giovanni

AU - Krestin, Gabriel P.

PY - 2010/1

Y1 - 2010/1

N2 - Purpose: To provide an overview of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in relation to radiology and to define a policy for adoption of this principle in the European radiological community. Results: Starting from Sackett’s definition of EBM we illustrate the top-down and bottom-up approaches to EBM as well as EBM’s limitations. Delayed diffusion and peculiar features of evidence-based radiology (EBR) are defined with emphasis on the need to shift from the demonstration of the increasing ability to see more and better, to the demonstration of a significant change in treatment planning or, at best, of a significant gain in patient outcome. The “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle is thought as a dimension of EBR while EBR is proposed as part of the core curriculum of radiology residency. Moreover, we describe the process of health technology assessment in radiology with reference to the six-level scale of hierarchy of studies on diagnostic tests, the main sources of bias in studies on diagnostic performance, and levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Oxford, UK) as well as the approach proposed by the GRADE working group. Problems and opportunities offered by evidence-based guidelines in radiology are considered. Finally, we suggest nine points to be actioned by the ESR in order to promote EBR. Conclusion: Radiology will benefit greatly from the improvement in practice that will result from adopting this more rigorous approach to all aspects of our work.

AB - Purpose: To provide an overview of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in relation to radiology and to define a policy for adoption of this principle in the European radiological community. Results: Starting from Sackett’s definition of EBM we illustrate the top-down and bottom-up approaches to EBM as well as EBM’s limitations. Delayed diffusion and peculiar features of evidence-based radiology (EBR) are defined with emphasis on the need to shift from the demonstration of the increasing ability to see more and better, to the demonstration of a significant change in treatment planning or, at best, of a significant gain in patient outcome. The “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle is thought as a dimension of EBR while EBR is proposed as part of the core curriculum of radiology residency. Moreover, we describe the process of health technology assessment in radiology with reference to the six-level scale of hierarchy of studies on diagnostic tests, the main sources of bias in studies on diagnostic performance, and levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Oxford, UK) as well as the approach proposed by the GRADE working group. Problems and opportunities offered by evidence-based guidelines in radiology are considered. Finally, we suggest nine points to be actioned by the ESR in order to promote EBR. Conclusion: Radiology will benefit greatly from the improvement in practice that will result from adopting this more rigorous approach to all aspects of our work.

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - evidence-based radiology

KW - ALARA

KW - health technology assessment

KW - degrees of recommendations

KW - evidence-based-medicine

KW - diagnostic-imaging technology

KW - clinical-practice guidelines

KW - cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - randomized-trial

KW - quality

KW - radiation

KW - accuracy

KW - strength

KW - knee

U2 - 10.1007/s00330-009-1574-4

DO - 10.1007/s00330-009-1574-4

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 1

EP - 15

JO - European Radiology

JF - European Radiology

SN - 0938-7994

IS - 1

ER -