Neuroimaging clinics of North America
-
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].
-
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.
-
Society is increasingly demanding proof that imaging has an impact on patient outcome and questioning its cost on the health care delivery system. Radiologists should provide the following three key components in their research publications: (1) the statistical power and confidence intervals of the results obtained; (2) the diagnostic performance of the tests, including sensitivity, specificity, and ROC curves; and (3) comprehensive decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the impact that imaging has on health outcome, cost, and quality of life. Strict adherence to these evidence-based medicine principles would help advance the field and provide the best health care for patients.
-
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
ReviewNeuroimaging in Alzheimer disease: an evidence-based review.
Current clinical criteria (DSM-IIIR and NINCDS-ADRDA) for the diagnosis of dementia and AD are reliable; however, these criteria remain to be validated by clinicians of different levels of expertise at different clinical settings. Structural neuroimaging has an important role in initial evaluation of dementia for ruling out potentially treatable causes. Although CT is the appropriate choice when brain tumors, subdural hematoma, or normal pressure hydrocephalus is suspected, MR imaging is more sensitive to the white-matter changes in vascular dementia. ⋯ These neuroimaging markers may be useful for monitoring symptomatic progression in groups of patients with AD for drug trials. Furthermore, antemortem MR-based hippocampal volumes correlate with the pathologic stage of AD, and the rate of hippocampal volume loss on MR imaging correlates with clinical disease progression in the cognitive continuum from normal aging to MCI and to AD. Hence, as an in vivo correlate of pathologic involvement, structural imaging measures are potential surrogate markers for disease progression in patients with established AD and in patients with prodromal AD, who will benefit most from disease-modifying therapies underway.