<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: ct scans</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'ct scans'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22ct+scans%22&t=%22ct+scans%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:11:09 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>CT Scans For Kids: Is The Radiation Exposure Dangerous?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4723809&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fct-scans-for-kids-is-the-radiation-exposure-dangerous%2F2011.04.16</link>
            <description>There was an interesting study published this week in the journal Radiology:
Rising Use of CT in Child Visits to the Emergency Department in the United States, 1995–2008 (Abstract)
The results are not surprising to anyone who has been working in medicine in the US over the last fifteen years. Basically, in 1995, a kid visiting the ER had a 1.2% likelihood of getting a CT scan, and by 2008, that number was 5.9%.
I had written about this general phenomon not too long ago, in defense of the general increase of CT utilization in the ER, largely on the basis that CT is a better tool: it provides diagnoses in a rapid and timely manner, and excludes many potential life threats, saving lives and mitigating malpractice risk. That was largely relevant to the adult population, though, and kids are ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4723809</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4723809</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>In The ER With Abdominal Pain? Lower Your Diagnosis Expectations</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477760&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fin-the-er-with-abdominal-pain-lower-your-diagnosis-expectations%2F2011.02.15</link>
            <description>Abdominal pain is the bane of many emergency physicians. Recently, I wrote how CT scans are on the rise in the ER. Much of those scans look for potential causes of abdominal pain.
In an essay from Time, Dr. Zachary Meisel discusses why abdominal pain, in his words, is the doctor’s “booby prize.” And when you consider that there are 7 million visits annually by people who report abdominal pain, that’s a lot of proverbial prizes.
One reason is the myriad of causes that lead bring a patient to the hospital clutching his abdomen. It can range from something as relatively benign as viral gastroenteritis where a patient be safely discharged home, to any number of “acute” abdominal problems necessitating surgery.
But more importantly, we need to consider how limited doctors actually a...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477760</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:00:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477760</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reassuring Patients About CT Scans And Radiation Risks</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4275325&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Freassuring-patients-about-ct-scans-and-radiation-risks%2F2010.12.20</link>
            <description>Emergency patients with acute abdominal pain feel more confident about medical diagnoses when a doctor has ordered a computed tomography (CT) scan, and nearly three-quarters of patients underestimate the radiation risk posed by this test, reports the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
&amp;#8220;Patients with abdominal pain are four times more confident in an exam that includes imaging than in an exam that has no testing,&amp;#8221; said the paper&amp;#8217;s lead author. &amp;#8220;Most of the patients in our study had little understanding of the amount of radiation delivered by one CT scan, never mind several over the course of a lifetime. Many of the patients did not recall earlier CT scans, even though they were listed in electronic medical records.&amp;#8221;
Researchers surveyed 1,168 patients with non-traum...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4275325</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4275325</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>GE: Don't Know Much About Radiation Safety, Don't Know Much About Physics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3822872&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fge-dont-know-much-about-radiation.html</link>
            <description>Don't know much about historyDon't know much biologyDon't know much about a science bookDon't know much about the french I took.(Wonderful World, sung by Sam Cook)This is becoming the theme song for executives of health care corporations.&amp;nbsp; We have posted about a series of cases in which major health care corporations suddenly seemed unable to carry out their core business functions, a phenomenon I am going to start calling &quot;core business incompetence.&quot;&amp;nbsp; Some recent examples:-&amp;nbsp; Baxter International apparently failed to check the purity of heparin it bought from a foreign supplier; the contaminated heparin resulted in approximately 81 deaths. (See post here.)-&amp;nbsp; A major Genzyme manufacturing facility had multiple quality problems, resulting in the production of a very expe...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3822872</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:41:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3822872</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CT Scans &amp; A Former FDA Scientist, In His Own Words</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3425127&amp;cid=t_133756_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FapqXKMJknQk%2F</link>
            <description>There was a bit of a spectacle yesterday as Julian Nicholas, a former FDA scientist, told a public hearing that he and other FDA staffers &amp;#8220;were pressured to change their scientific opinion&amp;#8221; after they opposed the approval of a CT scanner for routine colon cancer screening. Nicholas said he objected to exposing otherwise healthy patients to cancer risks of radiation and his job was eventually eliminated.
After FDA officials proceeded with plans to approve the device, Nicholas, who now works at the Scripps Clinic in San Diego, said concerns were raised last fall with the division director Jeff Shuren. Nicholas does not think there was undue influence by the manufacturer in his ouster, but his stance was opposed by FDA officials, the Associated Press writes. The device is apparent...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3425127</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:52:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3425127</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Military War Dead Help The Living</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2441255&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=34872&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blisstree.com%2Fhealthbolt%2Fmilitary-war-dead-help-the-living%2F</link>
            <description>It’s a little know fact but since 2001 all military personnel killed in Afghanistan or Iraq have had autopsies done and since 2004 have also been given a CT scan within an hour of their arrival at Dover Air Force Base.
Arlington Cemetary
It’s something that never happened in previous wars. But this is now a routine way of not only determining accurately the cause of death but to also obtain full details about injuries from bullets, blasts, shrapnel, and burns.
The end result of these autopsies is yielding a wealth of information that highlights any deficiencies in equipment (ie body armor, vehicle shielding, etc) and has resulted in changes and improvements in military and medical field equipment.
Have a read of this New York Times article to find out more about this new world of milit...</description>
            <author>Healthbolt</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2441255</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 07:14:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2441255</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CT Scan Music</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2347875&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=34935&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedicine.com.my%2Fwp%2F%3Fp%3D6740</link>
            <description>Animated CT scans set to music (via Kevinmd.com)
Inside The Jaymis: Skeleton Animation - Wide Time from Jaymis on Vimeo.
Inside The Jaymis: Squishy Bits Version from Jaymis on Vimeo.
What next? Musical animated blood films?
from the Malaysian Medical Resources
CT Scan Music (Source: Malaysian Medical Resources)</description>
            <author>Malaysian Medical Resources</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2347875</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2347875</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Sudden Heart Attack</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2074609&amp;cid=t_133756_111_f&amp;fid=36048&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FAHeartyLife%2F%7E3%2FIEFtbjKBwoM%2F</link>
            <description>When you have a complete physical every year, a problem with your heart may&amp;nbsp;not be evident. There are a number of ways to examine the heart such as stress test, CT scans, angiograms and X-rays looking for blocked arteries.
These test are effective in showing the slow chronic built-up of plaque in your arteries that eventually cause blockage. When someone has a sudden heart attack often it is caused by a tiny piece of plaque. The plaque was so small that it was not detected in any test, but suddenly ruptures in their artery.
One doctor explained the sudden heart attack by saying, &amp;#8220;plaque is like a piece of popcorn that has been placed in a microwave that all of a sudden bursts open.&amp;#8221; When this happens a blood clot will form blocking the flow of blood within seconds.
If doct...</description>
            <author>A Hearty Life</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2074609</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:29:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2074609</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>BLOGSCAN - Evidence? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Evidence</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1560784&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fblogscan-evidence-we-dont-need-no.html</link>
            <description>The New York Times recently reported on the rush to use advanced CT scans for cardiologic diagnosis, in the absence of much evidence that this expensive technology works. Merrill Goozner on GoozNews, and Matthew Holt on the Health Care Blog offered some pithy comments. My jaw dropped at this quote in the Times article:It's incumbent on the community to dispense with the need for evidence-based medicine.As Goozner wrote, when self proclaimed experts (perhaps key opinion leaders) are convinced they are right, they don't need no stinkin' evidence. (Source: Health Care Renewal)</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1560784</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:46:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1560784</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Smoked Out: Funding Lung Cancer Screening Research with Tobacco Money</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1331368&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F03%2Fsmoked-out-funding-lung-cancer.html</link>
            <description>A few weeks ago, we posted about conflicts of interest affecting a widely publicized study of using CT scans to screen for lung cancer. The study, basically a large case-series, was susceptible to multiple kinds of study bias that challenged its validity. Yet its authors used this limited and flawed data to strongly advocate such screening. Two lead study investigators, Dr Claudia Henschke and Dr David Yankelevitz of Weill Medical College of Cornell University, held multiple patents on technology used for the screening, and had licensed one patent to General Electric, a manufacturer of CT scans, and exchanged another for rights in a start-up manufacturer of lung biopsy devices. They did not disclose these conflicts in the articles they published describing study results, including one in t...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1331368</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:36:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1331368</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cancer Screening, CT Scans, and Patent Applications</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1292216&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F03%2Fcancer-screening-ct-scans-and-patent.html</link>
            <description>We are getting to this story a bit late, but perhaps can provide some new insight.In 2006, an article that supported the value of CT scans to screen for lung cancer caused quite a stir. [The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1763-1771. Link here.]The article reported a case series of over 30,000 patients who were entered into a program using annual CT scans to screen for lung cancer. Over 10 years of enrollment, 484 patients were found to have cancer. The investigators estimated the10-year lung-cancer specific survival of these patients was 80%, concluding &quot;annual spiral CT screening can detect lung cancer that is curable.&quot;A few days later, the article's lead author, ...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1292216</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:19:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1292216</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>64 Slice CT Scan Proves To Be Effective In Detecting Heart Blockages That Would Otherwise Look To Heart Catheterizations</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1015870&amp;cid=t_133756_111_f&amp;fid=36048&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FAHeartyLife%2F%7E3%2F182176145%2F</link>
            <description>Very interesting considering I have been a cardiac nurse for near 10 years and have always been told and observed that a cardiac catheterization is the only &amp;#8220;real&amp;#8221; way to visualize blockages in the heart&amp;#8230;
A study by an international team of cardiac imaging specialists, led by researchers at Johns Hopkins, concludes that sophisticated computed tomography (CT) scans of the heart and its surrounding arteries are almost as reliable and accurate as more invasive procedures to check for blockages. 
The 64 slice CT scan that the researcher&amp;#8217;s are talking about was first introduced in the US in 2005 and was tested at Johns Hopkins. Beware though, they are not saying that the CT scans will replace cardiac cath&amp;#8217;s but to rule out patients that do not need the more invasiv...</description>
            <author>A Hearty Life</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1015870</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:11:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1015870</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Trigger Happy?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=948969&amp;cid=t_133756_88_f&amp;fid=36536&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrismus1.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F09%2F26%2Ftrigger-happy%2F</link>
            <description>I guess I order a lot of CT scans.
It&amp;#8217;s my reputation anyway.  According, so I&amp;#8217;ve heard, to the radiology techs and nurses.  And I know at least one of the docs in my group feels this way.  Sometimes he&amp;#8217;ll ask me my opinion on a patient he&amp;#8217;s seeing.  &amp;#8220;I know you&amp;#8217;d scan this patient,&amp;#8221; he&amp;#8217;ll say, &amp;#8220;since you love ordering them so much.&amp;#8221;
I shouldn&amp;#8217;t let this kind of thing bother me.  Why should I care what the techs and nurses think?  Let them walk a mile in my shoes.  They&amp;#8217;re not held accountable if they miss a head bleed or PE or small bowel obstruction or neck fracture.  I am.
But still.  I don&amp;#8217;t want to be known as the guy who scans everything.  The implication is you&amp;#8217;re weak.  Or stupid.  Do...</description>
            <author>Ten out of Ten</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=948969</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:08:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">948969</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Should heart imaging CT scans for young women be ruled out?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=750218&amp;cid=t_133756_87_f&amp;fid=34865&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecancerblog.com%2F2007%2F07%2F23%2Fshould-ct-scans-for-women-be-ruled-out%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Breast Cancer, All CancersA recent study found that heart CT scans can increase the risk of cancer, particularly for young female patients. For example, researchers found that a 20-year-old woman's risk of developing cancer, usually breast cancer, increased to as high as one in 114 after a single scan. In comparison, the risk for an 80-year-old after one such scan was about one in 3,000.So does this mean that we should stop using CT scans for heart imaging, especially for young women? According to Dr. Donald Frush of ABC News, the answer is no.Frush does mention that there are other wasy to diagnose heart problems, including ultrasound or MRI. These methods do not use radiation. Stress tests are another method.Frush says doctors should take into account a patient's history whe...</description>
            <author>The Cancer Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=750218</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">750218</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

