It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the appropriateness of imaging tests associated with radiation in the field of otolaryngology according to the available recommendations, and to estimate the effective radiation dose associated.
Method
Cross-sectional epidemiological study of the totality of the imaging test requests carried out by two Spanish hospitals (n = 1931). We collected the following information: patient demographic data, type of imaging test, imaging tests referred in the previous 12 months, referrer department and diagnostic suspicion. In accordance with the available guidelines, we considered the requests: (a) Appropriate; (b) Inappropriate; (c) Not adequately justified; (d) Not included in the guidelines. We calculated the prevalence of each category and their variation according to the different variables. Collective and per capita effective dose were calculated for each category.
Results
Of the 538 requests, 42% were considered appropriate, 34.4% inappropriate, 11.9% not adequately justified and 11.7% not included in the guidelines. Imaging tests requested by general partitioners (aOR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06–0.50) and clinical departments (aOR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11–0.60) were less likely to be considered appropriate than those requested by the Otolaryngology department. Patients with a diagnosis suspicion of tumour pathology were more likely to have a requested imaging test classified as appropriate (aOR: 7.12; 95% CI: 3.25–15.61). The cumulative effective dose was 877.8 mSv, of which 40% corresponded to tests classified as inappropriate.
Conclusions
A high percentage of imaging tests are considered as inappropriate in the field of otolaryngology, with a relevant frequency of associated effective radiation dose. Type of department, the diagnostic suspicion and the type of imaging tests were variables associated to the inappropriateness of the test.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 General University Hospital of Elche, Elche, Spain (GRID:grid.411093.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0399 7977)
2 CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain (GRID:grid.466571.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 1756 6246); University of Alicante, Public Health Research Group, Alicante, Spain (GRID:grid.5268.9) (ISNI:0000 0001 2168 1800)
3 CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain (GRID:grid.466571.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 1756 6246); Miguel Hernandez University, Department of Public Health, History of Science and Gynaecology, Elche, Spain (GRID:grid.26811.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 0586 4893)