Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “RADIOGRAPHY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
PubMed1996

Quantitative radiography in osteoarthritis: microfocal radiography.

Quantitative macroradiography of patients with hand and knee OA, employing standardized radiographic and mensural procedures, permit: accurate and reproducible measurements of all radiographic features. significant changes in JSW and osteophyte number and size to be detected within as short a period as 18 months. therapeutic effects upon articular cartilage to be determined from changes in JSW. a better understanding of the disease process from an evaluation of the relative changes in the different radiographic features of OA.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed1996

Subtle pulmonary disease: detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography.

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic efficacy of hard- and soft-copy computed radiographic (CR) images versus conventional screen-film images of the chest in the detection of subtle pulmonary abnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty observes compared 87 hard-copy and soft-copy CR images with hard-copy screen-film images. Of 87 test images, 45 (including two identical sets of 12 images to test intra-observer variability) were abnormal and 42 (including two identical sets of 12 images) were normal. Of the 45 abnormal images, 15 (including two sets of four identical images) showed subtle abnormalities, 15 (including two sets of four identical images) showed mild abnormalities, and 15 (including two sets of four identical images) showed obvious abnormalities. Soft-copy viewing provided three differently processed images of every radiograph. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in receiver operating characteristic analyses were found among hard-copy screen-film images, hard-copy CR images, and soft-copy CR images, even in the group with subtle interstitial abnormalities. CONCLUSION: Hard-copy and soft-copy chest CR images are acceptable and available in place of screen-film images for primary interpretation of subtle interstitial lung diseases.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Coxofemoral joint laxity from distraction radiography and its contemporaneous and prospective correlation with laxity, subjective score, and evidence of degenerative joint disease from conventional hip-extended radiography in dogs.

A 3-year prospective study of large-breed dogs (4 months to 3 years of age) was conducted to evaluate the influence of radiographic positioning and age on coxofemoral joint (hip) laxity, subjective hip score, and development of degenerative joint disease (DJD). The dogs (n = 142) were breeder- or client-owned and represented 14 breeds. With dogs under heavy sedation, hips were radiographed in the standard hip-extended position and in the new compression/distraction position at 4, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months of age. The standard hip-extended radiographic view was evaluated by 3 methods: subjective evaluation by a board-certified veterinary radiologist (WHR), according to the standard 7-point Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) scoring scheme (OFA/WHR); joint laxity quantitation, using the Norberg angle (NA) method; and subjective scoring by a veterinary orthopedic surgeon for radiographic evidence of DJD. The hips in the distraction radiographic view were evaluated for passive hip laxity, as measured by use of a unitless distraction index (DI). Results of the study indicated that at a specific age (4, 6, 12, 24, or 36 months), all methods of hip evaluation correlated with each other at a moderate level (P < 0.05). The strength of contemporaneous correlation tended to increase with age of evaluation. Longitudinally, the between-method correlations were usually significant (P < 0.05), but not at a sufficiently high level to permit reliable between-method prediction. Prospective intraclass (within-method) statistical analysis of the various hip-scoring methods indicated that DI was superior to NA and OFA/WHR in comparability of score over time. The intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.55 to 0.91 for DI in contrast to 0.40 to 0.78 for NA, and 0.06 to 0.39 for OFA/WHR over the age intervals of the study. For reference, the highest Kappa of 0.39 for the subjective OFA/WHR scoring reflected a maximal level of agreement between time intervals, only slightly better than chance. The associated large error questions the predictive use of the 7-point, subjective hip-scoring scheme, particularly prior to the age of 2 years.

Aging↗
PubMed2001

The role of radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration: a randomised (unblinded) controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypotheses that: (1) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with improved patient outcomes, including pain, disability, health status, sickness absence, reassurance, and patient satisfaction or belief in the value of radiography. (2) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with changes in patient management, including medication use, and the use of primary and secondary care services, physical therapies and complementary therapies. (3) Participants choosing their treatment group (i.e. radiography or no radiography) do not have better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group. (4) Lumbar spine radiography is not cost-effective compared with usual care without lumbar spine radiography. DESIGN: A randomised unblinded controlled trial. SETTING: Seventy-three general practices in Nottingham, North Nottinghamshire, Southern Derbyshire, North Lincolnshire and North Leicestershire. Fifty-two practices recruited participants to the trial. SUBJECTS: Randomised arm: 421 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 10 weeks. Patient preference arm: 55 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 11 weeks. INTERVENTION: Lumbar spine radiography and usual care versus usual care without radiography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Roland adaptation of the Sickness Impact Profile, visual analogue pain scale, health status scale, EuroQol, use of primary and secondary care services, and physical and complementary therapies, sickness absence, medication use, patient satisfaction, reassurance and belief in value of radiography at 3 and 9 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were more likely to report low back pain at 3 months (odds ratio (OR) = 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 2.40) and had a lower overall health status score (p = 0.02). There were no differences in health or functional status at 9 months. A higher proportion of participants consulted the general practitioner (GP) in the 3 months following an X-ray (OR = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.80 to 4.10). There were no differences in use of any other services, medication use or sickness absence at 3 or 9 months. No serious spinal pathology was identified in either group. The commonest X-ray reports were of discovertebral degeneration and normal findings. Many patients did not perceive their information needs were met within the consultation. Satisfaction with care was greater in the group receiving radiography at 9 months. Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were not less worried, or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. Satisfaction was associated with meeting participants' information needs and reduced belief in the necessity for investigations for low back pain, including X-rays and blood tests. In both groups, at 3 and 9 months 80% of participants would choose to have an X-ray if the choice was available. Participants in the patient preference group achieved marginally better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group, but the clinical significance of these differences is unclear. Lumbar spine radiography was associated with a net economic loss at 3 and 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration is not associated with improved functioning, severity of pain or overall health status, and is associated with an increase in GP workload. Participants receiving X-rays are more satisfied with their care, but are not less worried or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Further work is required to develop and test an educational package that educates patients and GPs about the utility of radiography and provides strategies for identifying and meeting the information needs of patients, and the needs of patients and GPs to be reassured about missing serious disease. Guidelines on the management of low back pain in primary care should be consistent about not recommending lumbar spine radiography in patients with low back pain in the absence of red flags for serious spinal pathology, even if the pain has persisted for at least 6 weeks.

Adult↗