Seminars in Roentgenology
Volume 44, Issue 3 , Pages 201-208 , July 2009

Evidence-based Methodology for Evaluation of Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: Reflecting on a Self-Directed Learning Experience

  • Julianna M. Czum, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Julianna M. Czum, MD, Department of Radiology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH and Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH

References 

  1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gary JA, et al. Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72
  2. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence Based Medicine; How to Practice and Teach EBM. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2000;
  3. Evidence-BasedRadiology.Net. http://www.evidencebasedradiology.nethttp://www.ebr.ie
  4. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM). http://www.cebm.net
  5. Staunton M. Evidence-based radiology: Steps 1 and 2—Asking answerable questions and searching for evidence. Radiology. 2007;242:23–31
  6. Dodd JD. Evidence-based practice in radiology: Steps 3 and 4—Appraise and apply diagnostic radiology literature. Radiology. 2007;242:342–354
  7. Halligan S, Altman DG. Evidence-based practice in radiology: Steps 3 and 4—Appraise and apply systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Radiology. 2007;243:13–27
  8. Malone DE, Staunton M. Evidence-based practice in radiology: Step 5 (evaluate)—Caveats and common questions. Radiology. 2007;243:319–328
  9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez
  10. UpToDate: Inc.. http://www.uptodate.com
  11. Ovid. http://gateway.ovid.com
  12. Cochrane collection. http://www.cochrane.org
  13. BMJ clinical evidence. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com
  14. Generator EBMP. http://www.ebmpyramid.org
  15. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp
  16. TRIP: (Turning research into practice) database. http://www.tripdatabase.com
  17. Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Malagutti P, et al. Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography (A meta-analysis). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1896–1910
  18. Czum JM. Coronary CT angiography for coronary artery stenosis: A critically appraised topic. Semin Roentgenol. 2009;44:188–190
  19. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Gatsonis CA, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. Radiology. 2003;226:24–28
  20. Evidence-BasedRadiology.Net. http://www.ebr.ie/downloaddocs/critical_appraisal_worksheet.doc
  21. Michigan State University: Information mastery. http://www.poems.msu.edu/InfoMastery/Diagnosis/DxWorksheet.htm
  22. MacEneaney PM, Malone DE. The meaning of diagnostic test results: A spreadsheet for swift data analysis. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:227–235[Interactive spreadsheet accessed via hyperlink available at: http://www.evidencebasedradiology.net]
  23. Dodd JD, MacEneaney PM, Malone DE. Evidence-based radiology: How to quickly assess the validity and strength of publications in the diagnostic radiology literature. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:915–922
  24. Meijboom WB, van Mieghem CAG, Mollet NR, et al. 64-Slice computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with high, intermediate, or low pre-test probability of significant coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1469–1475
  25. Toronto CEBM. http://www.cebm.utoronto.ca/practise/evaluate/index.htm
  26. Handel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/ SCAI/SIR, 2006 Appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1475–1497
  27. Black WC, Czum JM. Screening coronary CT angiography: No time soon. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;5:295–299
  28. Heffernan EJ, Dodd JD, Malone DE. Cardiac multidetector CT: Technical and diagnostic evaluation with evidence-based techniques. Radiology. 2008;248:366–377
  29. Hamon M, Morello R, Riddell JW, et al. Coronary arteries: Diagnostic performance of 16-versus 64-section spiral CT compared with invasive coronary angiography—Meta-analysis. Radiology. 2007;245:720–731
  30. Oxford CEBM. http://www.CATmaker.nethttp://www.cebm.net

PII: S0037-198X(09)00023-6

doi: 10.1053/j.ro.2009.03.017

Seminars in Roentgenology
Volume 44, Issue 3 , Pages 201-208 , July 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution