Velásquez PL, Ríos CC, López GM, Salgado LP, Ruano CL, Juárez OSG, Trejo CA

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 299-303
PDF size: 68.25 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The new procedures and the radiological studies have reduced the uncertainty of physicians diagnosis. Imaging studies through Magnetic Resonance provide the information of some organs, about their functions and images in various levels. The introduction of imaging studies such as the Magnetic Resonance has increased the evaluation cost of the patients. Sometimes, physicians use indiscriminately these studies.
Material and methods: In this study we evaluate relevancy and prevalence of prescribing Magnetic Resonance studies in the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery in Mexico City. The relevancy of the number of studies requested by doctors, according to the decease was 84%.
Results: The 91% of the requested studies was for the area of External Consultation and the remaining for the area of hospitalization. Initial clinical diagnosis coincided with the result reported in the MRI study 79.5%.
Conclusion: In general, this study didn’t show an indiscriminate use of Magnetic Resonance studies on behalf of doctors, nevertheless, it is necessary to evaluate as a routine the clinical diagnosis and the definitive diagnosis agreement.

REFERENCES

1. Kassirer JP. Diagnostic Reasoning. Annals of Internal Medicine 1989; 110: 893-900.

2. Feinstein AR. An analysis of diagnostic reasoning. II The strategy of intermediate decisions. Yale J Biol Med 1973; 46: 264-83.

3. Kassirer JP. Gorry GA. Clinical problem solving: a behavioral analysis. Ann Intern Med 1978; 89: 244-55.

4. Kassiller JP. Sounding Board. Our stubborn quest for diagnostic certainty. A cause of excessive testing. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 1489-91.

5. Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B. Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?. Organ Behav Hum Performance 1977; 20: 159-83.

6. Rivin AU. The most cost-effective and quality effective factor in medical care: well trained conscientious primary care physicians. West J Med 1985; 143: 399-400.

7. Rosenbojm J, Palladino E, Azevedo AC. Sistema experto de Diagnóstico Clínico para el apoyo de la primera consulta. Salud Puública Mex 1993; 35: 321-5.

8. Kosekoff J, Brook RH, Fink A, Kamberg C, Roth CP, Goldberg GA, et al. Providing primary general medical care in university hospitals: efficiency and cost. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 399-405.

9. Thompson WD, and Walter Sd. A reapraisal of the Kaappa coefficient. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 949-58.

10. Fajardo GA, Yamamoto KLT, Garduño EJ, Hernández HD, Martínez GC. Consistencia y Validez de una medición en la investigación clínica pediátrica. Definición, evaluación y su interpretación. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 1991; 48: 367-81.

11. Browner SB, Newman TB, Cummings SR. Diseño de un nuevo estudio: III. Pruebas diagnósticas. En: Hulley SB, Cummings SR. Diseño de la Investigación Clínica. Un enfoque epidemiológico. Ediciones Doyma S.A.; 1993.

12. Kuzniccky RI. Neuroimaging inpaeduatruc eoukuosy. Epilepsia 1996; 37: 10-21.

13. Dooms GD, Hecht S, Brant-Zawadski M, et al. Brain radiation lesions: MR imaging. Radiation lesions: MR imaging. Radiology 1986; 158: 149-55.

14. Información proporcionada por el departamento de archivo clínico del Instituto Nacional De Neurología y Neurocirugía Manuel Velasco Suárez; 2002.

15. Dean AG, Dean JA, Burton AH, Dicker RC. Epi Info, Versión 5: a word processing, database, and statistics program for epidemiology on microcomputers. Stone Mountain, Georgia: USD Incorporated; 1990.