Neuroimaging clinics of North America
-
Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. · May 2003
ReviewEvidence-based imaging evaluation of the cervical spine in trauma.
Despite the relatively low frequency of cervical spine fractures in trauma patients, tremendous resources are expended on the use of imaging to exclude fracture. Some level 2 evidence can direct the selection of subjects for imaging and optimization of the imaging strategy. A suggested algorithm for evidence-based cervical spine imaging is shown in Fig. 1. ⋯ For high-risk subjects, cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that CT is the preferred initial strategy. When compared with radiography, the higher short-term costs of CT are counter-balanced by the decreased need for further imaging in patients without injury and by the increased sensitivity for fracture. The high-risk cervical spine criteria used at the author's center seem to be valid for identifying appropriate patients for initial imaging with CT.
-
Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. · May 2003
ReviewAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis and primary lateral sclerosis: evidence-based diagnostic evaluation of the upper motor neuron.
Magnetic resonance imaging and MR spectroscopy are important tools in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected motor neuron disease. Further investigation is needed to determine and to compare the utility of various neuroimaging markers for diagnosis and disease progression [112]. Newer MR tools, such as diffusion tensor imaging, magnetization transfer imaging, and functional MR imaging, have substantial promise as scientific and clinical tools in this ongoing endeavor.
-
Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. · May 2003
ReviewAdults and children with headache: evidence-based diagnostic evaluation.
Headache represents one of the most common complaints in the outpatient and emergency room setting [1]. Most causes of headache are benign and do not require emergent imaging or intervention. The authors' review of the diagnostic tests does not offer absolute indications for neuroimaging because most of the evidence is based on studies that are not randomized controlled trials. ⋯ In high-risk patients, MR imaging is the test of choice whereas in low-risk patients, close clinical observation with periodic reassessment is the best strategy [44]. Clinical diagnosis will always play a key role in the evaluation of headache disorders; however, for the small subset of patients who present with headache secondary to an intracranial space-occupying lesion, bleeding, or SAH, making the diagnosis is crucial to decreasing morbidity and mortality. CT, MR imaging, and lumbar puncture play important roles in the assessment of headache disorders, but their future roles will continue to evolve as the technology becomes more sophisticated and robust, and physicians become more expert with their use [1].
-
The imaging work-up of patients with acute neurologic deficits should begin with noncontrast CT to exclude intracerebral hemorrhage. Based on positive results from the NINDS t-PA trial, the overriding objectives of imaging in the selection of patients for t-PA treatment are the detection of hemorrhage and rapid evaluation (speed of imaging). ⋯ Clinical outcome data are lacking; therefore, the routine use of screening MR imaging before t-PA therapy is not supported. Rigorous validation and correlation to clinical outcomes will be required.
-
Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. · May 2003
ReviewExamining the role of cranial CT in the evaluation of patients with minor head injury: a systematic review.
This systematic review demonstrates that, in patients sustaining minor head injury with a history of loss of consciousness or amnesia, the proportion who subsequently have positive CT scans is not negligible. Published clinical prediction rules for selecting patients for subsequent CT examination are associated with a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity; therefore, a prediction rule with high sensitivity is expected to have relatively low specificity. Separate evaluation of the literature is required to determine the significance of positive and negative CT scans with respect to patient outcome.