Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mr. President, Members of the Institute, Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Swedish Radiological Society I feel it a great honour to have been invited to deliver the famous Mackenzie Davidson Memorial Lecture. I thank you and your committee. When looking through the list of predecessors I was pleased to see the name of Gösta Forssell, since Gösta Forssell in Sweden was what Mackenzie Davidson was in England—an outstanding pioneer in the field of radiology. To be included in a list with such eminent members of the profession marks an important occasion in my life. I have chosen as the subject of my paper: Modern Trends in Diagnostic Roentgenology of the Colon with special emphasis on the question: Is routine double contrast examination worth while in the investigation of bowel trouble? In other words, if we have to with hold the benefit of double contrast examination simply because of some discomfort to the patient or because of extra cost, it is surely being penny wise and pound foolish. First of all we cannot treat a disease properly unless it is correctly diagnosed and, secondly, the patient may later have to suffer heavily for any discomfort he might have been spared in the investigation of his condition. As we all know, in the investigation of affections of the large bowel roentgenology is one of the most important methods we have. Subsequent clinical treatment depends very much, and sometimes entirely, on the results of this examination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sölve Welin (1958) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: