Key result
Routine chest radiography on admission and preoperatively does not enhance patient care and may yield more misleading than helpful results, suggesting it should be reserved for targeted clinical indications.
Why the study?
Does routine chest radiography improve patient outcomes compared to selective radiography based on clinical evaluation in patients undergoing admission or preoperative evaluation?
Does routine chest radiography improve patient outcomes compared to selective radiography based on clinical evaluation in patients undergoing admission or preoperative evaluation?
Routine admission and preoperative chest radiographs should be abandoned in favor of selective imaging based on clinical history and physical examination.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports selective chest radiography; leaves open the need for randomized trials to confirm outcome benefits.
Although admission and preoperative chest radiography has been done for many years in various settings, existing data do not support its utility in enhancing patient care. Calculations based on estimates of the accuracy of chest radiographs and the likelihood of disease suggest that routine chest radiography may result in many more misleading than helpful results. Patients in whom chest radiographs are likely to improve outcome are best identified by a careful history and physical examination. We recommend that the practice of doing routine chest radiographs on admission and preoperatively be stopped and that the procedure be reserved for patients with clinical evidence of chest disease and patients having intrathoracic surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas G. Tape (1986) conducted a review in Patients undergoing admission or preoperative evaluation. Routine chest radiographs vs. Selective chest radiographs based on clinical evidence was evaluated on Utility in enhancing patient care. Routine chest radiography on admission and preoperatively does not enhance patient care and may yield more misleading than helpful results, suggesting it should be reserved for targeted clinical indications.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: