Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography: Impact on Diagnostic Utility
Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, ISSN: 1532-3145, Vol: 41, Issue: 5, Page: 746-749
2017
- 7Citations
- 26Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations7
- Citation Indexes7
- CrossRef7
- Captures26
- Readers26
- 26
Article Description
Background Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines for cardiac computed tomography (CCT) were developed to limit testing to reasonable clinical settings. However, significant testing is still done for inappropriate indications. This study investigates the impact of AUC on evaluability of CCT to determine if inappropriate tests result in a greater proportion of nondiagnostic results. Methods Investigators reviewed the medical records of 2417 consecutive patients who underwent CCT at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. We applied the 2010 AUC and classified them as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain. Unclassifiable tests, as well as those with uncertain appropriateness, were excluded from the final analysis. Cardiac computed tomography results were classified as diagnostic if (1) all coronary segments were visualized, evaluable, and without obstructive stenosis; or (2) obstructive coronary artery disease with greater than 50% diameter stenosis in at least 1 coronary artery. All other test results were considered nondiagnostic. Results Of the 1984 patients included in the final analysis, 1522 patients (76.7%) had indications that were appropriate, whereas the remaining 462 (23.3%) were inappropriate. Inappropriate tests resulted in a higher rate of nondiagnostic results compared with appropriate CCT (9.0% vs 6.2%, P = 0.034). Inappropriate tests also had significantly more studies with nonevaluable segments than appropriate tests (24.5% vs 16.4%, P < 0.001) and were more likely to reveal obstructive coronary disease than appropriate CCT (50.5% vs 32.7%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Cardiac computed tomography done for inappropriate indications may be associated with lower diagnostic yield and could impact future downstream resource utilization and health care costs.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85030617342&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/rct.0000000000000594; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28915208; http://Insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00004728-201709000-00013; https://journals.lww.com/00004728-201709000-00013; https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/rct.0000000000000594; https://insights.ovid.com/ShowUpgradeBrowserMessage
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know