Browsing by Subject "contrast"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Curricula for Teaching MRI Safety and MRI/CT Contrast Safety To Residents: How Effective Are Live Lectures and Online Modules?
    (Elsevier, 2015-10) Swensson, Jordan; McMahan, Lane; Rase, Ben; Tahir, Bilal; Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, IU School of Medicine
    Purpose The advent of the diagnostic radiology core examination and the new ACGME “milestone” evaluation system for radiology residents places new emphasis on topics in MRI and CT safety, and MRI and CT contrast agents. We evaluated whether either lecture-based teaching or online modules would improve baseline resident knowledge in these areas, and assessed which intervention was more effective. Methods Before didactic intervention, 2 cohorts were created from 57 radiology residents, with equal numbers and a matched level of training. The residents were tested on their baseline knowledge of MRI, MRI contrast safety, and CT contrast safety, using a multiple-choice examination. One group attended a live, 1-hour lecture on the preceding topics. The other engaged in 3 short online educational modules. After 6 weeks, the residents were again tested with the same questions to assess for improvement in their understanding. Results Both the module and lecture cohorts demonstrated a statistically significant increase in questions answered correctly on CT contrast safety (13.1%, P < .001, and 19.1%, P < .001, respectively), and on MRI and MRI contrast safety (12.9%, P < .001, and 14.4%, P < .001). The preintervention and postintervention scores, and degree of improvement postintervention, were similar for the module versus lecture groups, without a statistically significant difference (P = .70). Resident confidence improved in both groups, for both modalities. Conclusions Focused didactic intervention improves resident knowledge of MRI and CT safety, and MRI and CT contrast agents. Live lectures and online modules can be equally effective, allowing residency programs flexibility.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Meta-Analysis: Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Conventional Ultrasound for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions
    (Elsevier, 2018-05) Li, Qian; Hu, Min; Chen, Zhikui; Li, Changtian; Zhang, Xi; Song, Yiqing; Xiang, Feixiang; Epidemiology, School of Public Health
    This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), conventional ultrasound (US) combined with CEUS (US + CEUS) and US for distinguishing breast lesions. From thorough literature research, studies that compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS versus US or US + CEUS versus US, using pathology results as the gold standard, were included. A total of 10 studies were included, of which 9 compared the diagnostic performance of CEUS and US, and 5 studies compared US + CEUS and US. In those comparing CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91–0.95) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84–0.88) versus 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69–0.75). In studies comparing US + CEUS versus US, the pooled sensitivity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96) versus 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84–0.90) and pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82–0.89) versus 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76–0.84). In terms of diagnosing breast malignancy, areas under the curve of the summary receiver operating characteristic (of both CEUS (p = 0.003) and US + CEUS (p = 0.000) were statistically higher than that of US. Both CEUS alone and US + CEUS had better diagnostic performance than US in differentiation of breast lesions, and US + CEUS also had low negative likelihood ratio.