These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Double contrast barium enema sensitivity: a comparison of studies by radiographers and radiologists.
    Author: Culpan DG, Mitchell AJ, Hughes S, Nutman M, Chapman AH.
    Journal: Clin Radiol; 2002 Jul; 57(7):604-7. PubMed ID: 12096859.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: A retrospective study of histologically proven cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) was performed to assess whether the sensitivity of the radiographer-performed double contrast barium enema (DCBE) differed from that of the radiologist-performed study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histologically proven cases of CRC were reviewed over a 3-year period to ascertain whether: the diagnosis had been made by DCBE in the 3 years before histological diagnosis; the lesion had been correctly diagnosed; the examination had been performed by a radiologist or radiographer. RESULTS: In the 3-year period there were 478 cases with histologically proven CRC. Of these, 239 (50%) had undergone DCBE as the initial radiological investigation of the colon. Sixty-four examinations had been performed by radiographers. A correct diagnosis was made in 58 cases (90.6%), the report was equivocal in one case (1.6%), there were four false-negatives (6.25%), and one case was abandoned (1.6%). One hundred and seventy-five examinations were performed by radiologists. A correct diagnosis was made in 157 cases (89.7%), the report was equivocal in one case (0.6%), there were 16 false-negatives (9.1%), and one case was abandoned (0.6%). CONCLUSION: A sensitivity of 90.6% for radiographer-performed studies compared favourably with 89.7% for radiologist-performed studies and supports the practice of radiographers undertaking barium enemas.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]