Clinical decision rules for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department: A research agenda

Nathan M. Finnerty, Robert M. Rodriguez, Christopher R. Carpenter, Benjamin C. Sun, Nik Theyyunni, Robert Ohle, Kenneth W. Dodd, Elizabeth M. Schoenfeld, Kendra D. Elm, Jeffrey Kline, James F. Holmes, Nathan Kuppermann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Major gaps persist in the development, validation, and implementation of clinical decision rules (CDRs) for diagnostic imaging. Objectives The objective of this working group and article was to generate a consensus-based research agenda for the development and implementation of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department (ED). Methods The authors followed consensus methodology, as outlined by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), combining literature review, electronic surveys, telephonic communications, and a modified nominal group technique. Final discussions occurred in person at the 2015 AEM consensus conference. Results A research agenda was developed, prioritizing the following questions: 1) what are the optimal methods to justify the derivation and validation of diagnostic imaging CDRs, 2) what level of evidence is required before disseminating CDRs for widespread implementation, 3) what defines a successful CDR, 4) how should investigators best compare CDRs to clinical judgment, and 5) what disease states are amenable (and highest priority) to development of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the ED? Conclusions The concepts discussed herein demonstrate the need for further research on CDR development and implementation regarding diagnostic imaging in the ED. Addressing this research agenda should have direct applicability to patients, clinicians, and health care systems.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1406-1416
Number of pages11
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume22
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

Diagnostic Imaging
Hospital Emergency Service
Consensus
Research
Emergency Medicine
Patient Care
Communication
Research Personnel
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Finnerty, N. M., Rodriguez, R. M., Carpenter, C. R., Sun, B. C., Theyyunni, N., Ohle, R., ... Kuppermann, N. (2015). Clinical decision rules for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department: A research agenda. Academic Emergency Medicine, 22(12), 1406-1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12828

Clinical decision rules for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department : A research agenda. / Finnerty, Nathan M.; Rodriguez, Robert M.; Carpenter, Christopher R.; Sun, Benjamin C.; Theyyunni, Nik; Ohle, Robert; Dodd, Kenneth W.; Schoenfeld, Elizabeth M.; Elm, Kendra D.; Kline, Jeffrey; Holmes, James F.; Kuppermann, Nathan.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 12, 01.12.2015, p. 1406-1416.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Finnerty, NM, Rodriguez, RM, Carpenter, CR, Sun, BC, Theyyunni, N, Ohle, R, Dodd, KW, Schoenfeld, EM, Elm, KD, Kline, J, Holmes, JF & Kuppermann, N 2015, 'Clinical decision rules for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department: A research agenda', Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1406-1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12828
Finnerty NM, Rodriguez RM, Carpenter CR, Sun BC, Theyyunni N, Ohle R et al. Clinical decision rules for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department: A research agenda. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2015 Dec 1;22(12):1406-1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12828
Finnerty, Nathan M. ; Rodriguez, Robert M. ; Carpenter, Christopher R. ; Sun, Benjamin C. ; Theyyunni, Nik ; Ohle, Robert ; Dodd, Kenneth W. ; Schoenfeld, Elizabeth M. ; Elm, Kendra D. ; Kline, Jeffrey ; Holmes, James F. ; Kuppermann, Nathan. / Clinical decision rules for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department : A research agenda. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 22, No. 12. pp. 1406-1416.
@article{252a3130a95f49129a60ba756a684f16,
title = "Clinical decision rules for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department: A research agenda",
abstract = "Background Major gaps persist in the development, validation, and implementation of clinical decision rules (CDRs) for diagnostic imaging. Objectives The objective of this working group and article was to generate a consensus-based research agenda for the development and implementation of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department (ED). Methods The authors followed consensus methodology, as outlined by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), combining literature review, electronic surveys, telephonic communications, and a modified nominal group technique. Final discussions occurred in person at the 2015 AEM consensus conference. Results A research agenda was developed, prioritizing the following questions: 1) what are the optimal methods to justify the derivation and validation of diagnostic imaging CDRs, 2) what level of evidence is required before disseminating CDRs for widespread implementation, 3) what defines a successful CDR, 4) how should investigators best compare CDRs to clinical judgment, and 5) what disease states are amenable (and highest priority) to development of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the ED? Conclusions The concepts discussed herein demonstrate the need for further research on CDR development and implementation regarding diagnostic imaging in the ED. Addressing this research agenda should have direct applicability to patients, clinicians, and health care systems.",
author = "Finnerty, {Nathan M.} and Rodriguez, {Robert M.} and Carpenter, {Christopher R.} and Sun, {Benjamin C.} and Nik Theyyunni and Robert Ohle and Dodd, {Kenneth W.} and Schoenfeld, {Elizabeth M.} and Elm, {Kendra D.} and Jeffrey Kline and Holmes, {James F.} and Nathan Kuppermann",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/acem.12828",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "1406--1416",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical decision rules for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department

T2 - A research agenda

AU - Finnerty, Nathan M.

AU - Rodriguez, Robert M.

AU - Carpenter, Christopher R.

AU - Sun, Benjamin C.

AU - Theyyunni, Nik

AU - Ohle, Robert

AU - Dodd, Kenneth W.

AU - Schoenfeld, Elizabeth M.

AU - Elm, Kendra D.

AU - Kline, Jeffrey

AU - Holmes, James F.

AU - Kuppermann, Nathan

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - Background Major gaps persist in the development, validation, and implementation of clinical decision rules (CDRs) for diagnostic imaging. Objectives The objective of this working group and article was to generate a consensus-based research agenda for the development and implementation of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department (ED). Methods The authors followed consensus methodology, as outlined by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), combining literature review, electronic surveys, telephonic communications, and a modified nominal group technique. Final discussions occurred in person at the 2015 AEM consensus conference. Results A research agenda was developed, prioritizing the following questions: 1) what are the optimal methods to justify the derivation and validation of diagnostic imaging CDRs, 2) what level of evidence is required before disseminating CDRs for widespread implementation, 3) what defines a successful CDR, 4) how should investigators best compare CDRs to clinical judgment, and 5) what disease states are amenable (and highest priority) to development of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the ED? Conclusions The concepts discussed herein demonstrate the need for further research on CDR development and implementation regarding diagnostic imaging in the ED. Addressing this research agenda should have direct applicability to patients, clinicians, and health care systems.

AB - Background Major gaps persist in the development, validation, and implementation of clinical decision rules (CDRs) for diagnostic imaging. Objectives The objective of this working group and article was to generate a consensus-based research agenda for the development and implementation of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department (ED). Methods The authors followed consensus methodology, as outlined by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), combining literature review, electronic surveys, telephonic communications, and a modified nominal group technique. Final discussions occurred in person at the 2015 AEM consensus conference. Results A research agenda was developed, prioritizing the following questions: 1) what are the optimal methods to justify the derivation and validation of diagnostic imaging CDRs, 2) what level of evidence is required before disseminating CDRs for widespread implementation, 3) what defines a successful CDR, 4) how should investigators best compare CDRs to clinical judgment, and 5) what disease states are amenable (and highest priority) to development of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the ED? Conclusions The concepts discussed herein demonstrate the need for further research on CDR development and implementation regarding diagnostic imaging in the ED. Addressing this research agenda should have direct applicability to patients, clinicians, and health care systems.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956616431&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84956616431&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/acem.12828

DO - 10.1111/acem.12828

M3 - Article

C2 - 26567885

AN - SCOPUS:84956616431

VL - 22

SP - 1406

EP - 1416

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 12

ER -