Evidence-based Radiology: A New Approach to the Practice of Radiology

In this review, the principles of evidence-based health care and their application to radiology are discussed. Evidence-based health care involves the more formal integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and explicit acknowledgment of patient values in clinical decision making, as compared with conventional practice. Recently, many health care disciplines have adopted the principles and practice of evidence-based health care. In radiology, including its diagnostic and interventional aspects, these developments have received limited attention. This review of evidence-based health care could, therefore, be useful to radiologists at any stage of their training or career, to encourage the practice of evidence-based radiology. The development of evidence-based health care is described, and evidence-based health care and evidence-based radiology are defined. The importance of evidence-based health care as a new approach to the practice of medicine and its importance for transdisciplinary collaboration are discussed. The skills required to practice evidence-based radiology are identified, and the roles of evidence-based radiology in radiologic practice, education, and research are discussed.

References

  • 1 Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC. The need for evidence-based medicine. J R Soc Med 1995; 88: 620-624. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving. BMJ 1995; 310: 1122-1126. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jadad AR. Randomised controlled trials: a user’s guide London, England: BMJ Books, 1998; 98. Google Scholar
  • 5 Black D. The limitations of evidence. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1998; 32: 23-26. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jost RG. The IHE initiative (abstr). Radiology 1999; 213(P): 597. Google Scholar
  • 7 Choi PT, Jadad AR. Systematic reviews in anesthesia: should we embrace them or shoot the messenger? (editorial). Can J Anesth 2000; 47: 486-493. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Friedland DJ. Evidence-based medicine: a framework for clinical practice Stamford, Conn: Appleton & Lange, 1998. Google Scholar
  • 9 Jadad AR, Enkin MW. The new alchemy: transmuting information into knowledge in an electronic age. CMAJ 2000; 162: 1826-1828. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Starr P. The social transformation of American medicine New York, NY: Basic Books, 1982. Google Scholar
  • 11 Osler W. Aequanimitas; with other addresses to medical students, nurses and practitioners of medicine Philadelphia, Pa: Blakiston, 1905. Google Scholar
  • 12 Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992; 268: 2420-2425. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson S, Rosenberg WMC, Haynes BR. Evidence based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 14 Guyatt GH. Evidence-based medicine (editorial). Ann Intern Med 1991; 114(suppl 2): A16. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality home page. ; Available at: www.ahcpr.gov/. Accessed November 6, 2000.. Google Scholar
  • 16 Jadad AR, Haynes RB. The Cochrane Collaboration: advances and challenges in improving evidence-based decision making. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 2-9. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wood BP. What’s the evidence?. Radiology 1999; 213: 635-637. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Brook RH, Lohr K. Efficiency, effectiveness variations and quality: boundary crossing research. Med Care 1985; 23: 710-722. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Canadian medical education directions for Specialists 2000 Project, September 1996. ; Available at: rcpsc.medical .org/english/publications/canmed_e.html. Accessed November 6, 2000.. Google Scholar
  • 20 NHS Research and Development, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. CATbank topics: Levels of Evidence. ; Available at: cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/eboc/eboclevels.html. Accessed August 18, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 21 Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?. JAMA 1994; 271: 703-707. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid?. JAMA 1994; 271: 389-391. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 MacEneaney P, Malone DE. The meaning of diagnostic test results: a spreadsheet for swift data analysis. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 227-235. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Structuring clinical decisions under uncertainty In: Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders, 1980; 12-36. Google Scholar
  • 25 Straus SE, McAlister FA. Evidence-based medicine: past, present, and future. Annals of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada 1999; 32: 260-264. Google Scholar
  • 26 Jadad AR, Haynes RB, Hunt D, Browman GP. The Internet and evidence-based decision-making: a needed synergy for efficient knowledge management in health care. CMAJ 2000; 162: 362-365. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McAlister FA, Straus SE, Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. XX. Integrating research evidence with the care of the individual patient. JAMA 2000; 283: 2829-2836. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Levine M, Walter S, Lee H, Haines T, Holbrook A, Moyer V, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. IV. How to use an article about harm. JAMA 1994; 271: 1615-1619. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Laupacis A, Wells G, Richardson WS, Tugwell P, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. V. How to use an article about prognosis. JAMA 1994; 272: 234-237. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994; 272: 1367-1371. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Richardson WS, Detsky AS, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VII. How to use a clinical decision analysis. A. Are the results of the study valid?. JAMA 1995; 273: 1292-1295. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Richardson WS, Detsky AS, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VII. How to use a clinical decision analysis. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?. JAMA 1995; 273: 1610-1613. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Naylor CD, Guyatt GH, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. X. How to use an article reporting variations in the outcomes of health services. JAMA 1996; 275: 554-558. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Dans AL, Dans LF, Guyatt GH, Richardson S, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. XIV. How to decide on the applicability of clinical trial results to your patient. JAMA 1998; 279: 545-549. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Nishikawa J, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. XV. How to use an article about disease probability for differential diagnosis.. JAMA 1999; 281: 1214-1219. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Barratt A, Irwig L, Glasziou P, et al. for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. XVII. How to use guidelines and recommendations about screening. JAMA 1999; 281: 2029-2034. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Randolph AG, Haynes RB, Wyatt JC, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. XVIII. How to use an article evaluating the clinical impact of a computer-based clinical decision support system. JAMA 1999; 282: 67-74. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 1999; 282: 1865-1869. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Begg CB, McNeil BJ. Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology 1988; 167: 565-569. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Black WC. How to evaluate the radiology literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 154: 17-22. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 88-94. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Hillman BJ. Technology assessment and radiologist researchers (editorial). Invest Radiol 1991; 26: 109. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Hillman BJ. Medical imaging in the 21st century. Lancet 1997; 350: 731-733. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hillman BJ. Critical thinking: deciding whether to incorporate the recommendations of radiology publications and presentations into practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 943-946. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45 McNeil BJ, Adelstein SJ. Determining the value of diagnostic and screening tests. J Nucl Med 1976; 17: 439-448. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Sunshine JH, McNeil BJ. Rapid method for rigorous assessment of radiologic imaging technologies. Radiology 1997; 202: 559-557. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Thornbury JR, Eugene W. Caldwell Lecture: clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging—love it or leave it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: 1-8. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Thornbury JR. Why should radiologists be interested in technology assessment and outcomes research?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163: 1027-1030. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Thornbury JR, Kido DK, Mushlin AI, Phelps CE, Mooney C, Fryback DG. Increasing the scientific quality of clinical efficacy studies of magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1991; 26: 829-835. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Chang PJ. Bayesian analysis revisited: a radiologist’s survival guide. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 152: 721-727. Google Scholar
  • 51 Armstrong P, Black WC. Optimum utilisation of radiological tests: the radiologist as advisor. Clin Radiol 1989; 40: 444-447. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Dorfman GS. Utilization of diagnostic tests: assessing appropriateness. Acad Radiol 1999; 6(suppl 1): S40-S51. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Goldin J, Zhu W, Sayre JW. A review of the statistical analysis used in papers published in Clinical Radiology and British Journal of Radiology.. Clin Radiol 1996; 51: 47-50. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Elster AD. Use of statistical analysis in the AJR and Radiology: frequency, methods and subspeciality differences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163: 711-715. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Thornbury JR. Intermediate outcomes: diagnostic and therapeutic impact. Acad Radiol 1999; 6(suppl 1): S58-S65. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Malone DE, MacEneaney PM. Applying ‘technology assessment’ and ‘evidence based medicine’ theory to interventional radiology. I. Suggestions for the phased evaluation of new procedures. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 929-937. Google Scholar
  • 57 Dujardin B, Van den Ende J, Van Gompel A, Unger JP, Van der Stuyft P. Likelihood ratios, a real improvement for clinical decision making?. Eur J Epidemiol 1994; 10: 29-36. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Black WC, Welch HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1237-1243. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer?. JAMA 2000; 283: 2975-2978. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Black WC, Welch HG. Screening for disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 3-11. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Prorok PC, Kramer BS, Gohagan JK. Screening theory and study design: the basics. In: Kramer BS, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC, eds. Cancer screening: theory and practice. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 1999; 29-53. Google Scholar
  • 62 Hersh AL, Black WC, Tosteson AN. Estimating the population impact of an intervention: a decision-analytic approach. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 311-330. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Black WC. Should this patient be screened for cancer?. Eff Clin Pract 1999; 2: 86-95. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Lee JM. Screening and informed consent. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 438-440. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Wolf AM, Becker DM. Cancer screening and informed patient discussions: truth and consequences. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 1069-1072. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Austoker J. Gaining informed consent for screening: is difficult—but many misconceptions need to be undone (editorial). BMJ 1999; 319: 722-723. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 67 MacEneaney PM, Malone DE. Applying “evidence-based medicine” theory to interventional radiology. II. A spreadsheet for swift assessment of procedural benefit and harm. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 938-945. Google Scholar
  • 68 Dixon AK. Evidence-based diagnostic radiology. Lancet 1997; 350: 509-512. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Hersh W. “A world of knowledge at your fingertips”: the promise, reality, and future directions of on-line information retrieval. Acad Med 1999; 74: 240-243. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Candy PC. Self-direction for lifelong learning: a comprehensive guide to theory and practice San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Google Scholar
  • 71 Abrahamson S, Baron J, Elstein AS, et al. Continuing medical education for life: eight principles. Acad Med 1999; 74: 1288-1294. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Slotnick HB. How doctors learn: physicians’ self-directed learning episodes. Acad Med 1999; 74: 1106-1117. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Davis D, O’Brien MA, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmanian P, Taylor-Vaisey A. Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?. JAMA 1999; 282: 867-874. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Maudsley G. Do we all mean the same thing by “problem-based learning”? A review of the concepts and a formulation of the ground rules. Acad Med 1999; 74: 178-185. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Knowles MS. The modern practice of adult education: andragogy versus pedagogy New York, NY: New York Association, 1970. Google Scholar
  • 76 Schon DA. Education the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass, 1990. Google Scholar
  • 77 Guyatt G, Rennie D. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association, 2001. Google Scholar
  • 78 Health Information Research Unit. Evidence-Based Health Informatics ; Available at: hiru.mcmaster.ca/default.htm. Accessed August 18, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 79 Hillman BJ. Outcomes research and cost-effectiveness analysis for diagnostic imaging (editorial). Radiology 1994; 193: 307-310. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 80 ACRIN: American College of Radiology Imaging Network. ; Available at: www.acrin.org. Accessed August 18, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 81 Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone, 1997. Google Scholar
  • 82 The Meaning of Diagnostic Test Results: A Spreadsheet for Swift Data Analysis.; Available at: ftp://radiography.com/pub/Rad-data99.xls. Accessed August 18, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 83 Lusted LB. In the process of solution (editorial). N Engl J Med 1975; 292: 255-256. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Black WC. Anatomic extent of disease: a critical variable in reports of diagnostic accuracy (editorial). Radiology 2000; 217: 319-320. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Gray JAM. Evidence-based healthcare: how to make health policy and management decisions Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone, 1997. Google Scholar
  • 86 Auclair F. On the nature of evidence. Annals of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada 1999; 32: 453-455. Google Scholar
  • 87 Methodological issues in diagnostic clinical trials: health services and outcomes research in radiology—symposium proceedings.Acad Radiol1999; 6(suppl 1): S1-S136. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Naylor CD. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits of evidence based medicine. Lancet 1995; 345: 840-842. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Straus SE, McAlister FA. Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms. CMAJ 2000; 163: 837-841. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Bruel JM, Malone D. Imaging of bowel obstruction (abstr). Eur Radiol 2000; 10(suppl 1): 52. Google Scholar
  • 91 Gunderman RB. Strategic imagination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 973-976. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Snowball R. Finding the evidence: an information skills approach. In: Dawes M, Davies P, Gray A, Mant J, Seers K, Snowball R, eds. Evidence-based practice: a primer for health care professionals. London, England: Churchill-Livingstone, 1999; 15-46. Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Sept 2001