Redundant Neurovascular Imaging: Who Is to Blame and What Is the Value?

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Nederkoorn PJ,
   2. van der Graaf Y,
   3. Hunink M

   . Duplex ultrasound and magnetic resonance angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography in carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review. Stroke 2003;34:1324–32 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000068367.08991.A2 pmid:12690221

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Hassan AE,
   2. Rostambeigi N,
   3. Chaudhry SA, et al

   . Combination of noninvasive neurovascular imaging modalities in stroke patients: patterns of use and impact on need for digital subtraction angiography. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;22:e53–58 doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.03.020 pmid:22578916

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Adla T,
   2. Adlova R

   . Multimodality imaging of carotid stenosis. Int J Angiol 2015;24:179–84 doi:10.1055/s-0035-1556056 pmid:26417185

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Barnett HJ,
   2. Taylor DW,
   3. Haynes RB, et al

   ; North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 1991;325:445–53 doi:10.1056/NEJM199108153250701 pmid:1852179

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Papanicolas I,
   2. Woskie LR,
   3. Jha AK

   . Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 2018;319:1024–39 doi:10.1001/jama.2018.1150 pmid:29536101

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Haley T,
   2. Ghaemmaghami V,
   3. Loftus T, et al

   . Trauma: the impact of repeat imaging. Am J Surg 2009;198:858–62 doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.05.030 pmid:19969142

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Prabhakar AM,
   2. Gottumukkala RV,
   3. Hemingway J, et al

   . Increasing utilization of emergency department neuroimaging in Medicare beneficiaries from 1994 to 2015. Am J Emerg Med 2018;36:680–83 doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2017.12.057 pmid:29306644

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Levine DA,
   2. Burke JF

   . Stroke imaging: quantity, but is there quality? Med Care 2016;54:423–25 doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000538 pmid:27075899

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Adams HP,
   2. Bendixen BH,
   3. Kappelle LJ, et al

   . Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke. Definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST. Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment. Stroke 1993;24:35–41 doi:10.1161/01.str.24.1.35 pmid:7678184

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Gupta R,
    2. Greer SE,
    3. Martin ED

    . Inefficiencies in a rural trauma system: the burden of repeat imaging in interfacility transfers. J Trauma 2010;69:253–55 doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e4d579 pmid:20699732

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Lee SI,
    2. Krishnaraj A,
    3. Chatterji M, et al

    . When does a radiologist’s recommendation for follow-up result in high-cost imaging? Radiology 2012;262:544–49 doi:10.1148/radiol.11111091 pmid:22084210

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Sistrom CL,
    2. Dreyer KJ,
    3. Dang PP, et al

    . Recommendations for additional imaging in radiology reports: multifactorial analysis of 5.9 million examinations. Radiology 2009;253:453–61 doi:10.1148/radiol.2532090200 pmid:19710005

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Lee SI,
    2. Saokar A,
    3. Dreyer KJ, et al

    . Does radiologist recommendation for follow-up with the same imaging modality contribute substantially to high-cost imaging volume?. Radiology 2007;242:857–64 doi:10.1148/radiol.2423051754 pmid:17325070

    CrossRefPubMed