<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Radiation fears as a testing deterrent?</title> <atom:link href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/03/radiation-fears-as-testing-deterrent.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/03/radiation-fears-as-testing-deterrent.html</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: Anonymous</title><link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/03/radiation-fears-as-testing-deterrent.html#comment-84285</link> <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:04:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/03/radiation-fears-as-a-testing-deterrent.html#comment-84285</guid> <description>Ian, surely the patient has a right to know the odds and decide?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It is one thing when you plan to order a CT scan for symptoms when benefit greater than risk or at least comparable, although the patient still has a LEGAL right to know the risks. But there are plenty of CT scans ordered when risks outweight the benefit.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Especially, if you consider all the ads by radiology labs trying to convince symptomless (!) people to have a CT scan to rule out things they might have - e.g. cardiac imaging, or lung scans. Providing information about risks of CT scans can dissuade the patients from demanding CT scans. It could even answer a jury question &quot;what harm it&#039;d have been in ordering a CT scan?&quot;.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ian, surely the patient has a right to know the odds and decide?</p><p>It is one thing when you plan to order a CT scan for symptoms when benefit greater than risk or at least comparable, although the patient still has a LEGAL right to know the risks. But there are plenty of CT scans ordered when risks outweight the benefit.</p><p>Especially, if you consider all the ads by radiology labs trying to convince symptomless (!) people to have a CT scan to rule out things they might have &#8211; e.g. cardiac imaging, or lung scans. Providing information about risks of CT scans can dissuade the patients from demanding CT scans. It could even answer a jury question &#8220;what harm it&#8217;d have been in ordering a CT scan?&#8221;.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ian Furst</title><link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/03/radiation-fears-as-testing-deterrent.html#comment-84270</link> <dc:creator>Ian Furst</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:16:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/03/radiation-fears-as-a-testing-deterrent.html#comment-84270</guid> <description>Tough call but easy enough to discuss assuming you&#039;re not doing dozens of different scans.  Or do you leave it to the radiologist to discus who is usually nowhere near the scanner when it&#039;s being done?  We&#039;ve all had patients with vague complaints and the only way to rule out a mass lesion is a CT.  How can you reliably/accurately estimate the risk of cancer from the CT vs a missed diagnosis from vague symptoms?  Each will be 1% or less so you&#039;re estimate is inaccurate either way.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.waittimes.blogspot.com/&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.waittimes.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tough call but easy enough to discuss assuming you&#8217;re not doing dozens of different scans.  Or do you leave it to the radiologist to discus who is usually nowhere near the scanner when it&#8217;s being done?  We&#8217;ve all had patients with vague complaints and the only way to rule out a mass lesion is a CT.  How can you reliably/accurately estimate the risk of cancer from the CT vs a missed diagnosis from vague symptoms?  Each will be 1% or less so you&#8217;re estimate is inaccurate either way.<br /><a HREF="http://www.waittimes.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">http://www.waittimes.blogspot.com</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 2/6 queries in 0.003 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 352/356 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via cdn.kevinmd.com

Served from: www.kevinmd.com @ 2012-02-14 18:15:48 -->
