No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The compliance, true positive and false negative rates of the Charing Cross protocol for magnetic resonance imaging screening for cerebellopontine angle lesions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 May 2007
Abstract
Objectives:
To assess the effectiveness and determine the compliance to a local protocol for requesting magnetic resonance imaging scans to screen for the presence of cerebellopontine angle lesions.
Methods:
A combined retrospective study of all patients who had magnetic resonance imaging scans requested six months prior to and one year following introduction of the protocol and assessment of the true positive and false negative rate of the protocol by assessment of its sensitivity in cases referred from outside the department.
Results:
Comparison of the number of scans in each period showed a reduction in annualised rate of 142 to 46. The incidence of positive scans was the same in both periods, increasing the true positive rate from 1.4 to 4.3 per cent. The false negative rate was 1.1 per cent.
Conclusions:
The Charing Cross protocol has a good compliance rate within the department, has reduced the cost of screening for cerebellopontine angle lesions and has an acceptable true positive and false negative rate.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007
References
1 Harcourt, JP, Vijaya-Sekaran, S, Loney, E, Lennox, P. The incidence of symptoms consistent with cerebellopontine angle lesions in a general ENT out-patient clinic. J Laryngol Otol 1999;113:518–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Cox, GI. Intracanalicular acoustic neuromas: a conservative approach (Editorial). Clin Otolaryngol 1993;18:153–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Ramsden, RT. Intracanalicular acoustic neuromas: the case for early surgery (Editorial). Clin Otolaryngol 1994;19:1–210.1111/j.1365-2273.1994.tb01137.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Obholzer, RJ, Rea, PA, Harcourt, JP. MRI Screening for vestibular schwannoma: An analysis of published protocols. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:329–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Lustig, LR, Rifkin, S, Jackler, RK, Pitts, LH. Acoustic neuromas presenting with normal or symmetrical hearing: factors associated with diagnosis and outcome. Am J Otol 1998;19:212–18Google ScholarPubMed
6 Robinette, MS, Bauch, CD, Olsen, WO, Cevette, MJ. Auditory brainstem response and magnetic resonance imaging for acoustic neuromas: costs by prevalence. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:963–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Raber, E, Dort, JC, Sevick, R, Winkelaar, R. Asymmetric hearing loss: toward cost-effective diagnosis. J Otolaryngol 1997;26:88–91Google ScholarPubMed