Loading…

Increased rate of significant findings on brain MRI during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives To assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the proportion of abnormal paediatric neuroimaging findings as a surrogate marker for potential underutilisation. Methods Consecutive paediatric brain MRIs performed between March 27th and June 19th 2019 (Tbaseline) and March 23rd and June...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The neuroradiology journal 2023-12, Vol.36 (6), p.712-715
Main Authors: Wagner, Matthias W, Jadkarim, Dalia, Rajani, Nikil K, Biswas, Asthik, Olatunji, Richard, Law, Wyanne, Vidarsson, Logi, Amirabadi, Afsaneh, Ertl-Wagner, Birgit B
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives To assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the proportion of abnormal paediatric neuroimaging findings as a surrogate marker for potential underutilisation. Methods Consecutive paediatric brain MRIs performed between March 27th and June 19th 2019 (Tbaseline) and March 23rd and June 1st 2020 (Tpandemic) were reviewed and classified according to presence or absence and type of imaging abnormality, and graded regarding severity on a 5-point Likert scale, where grade 4 was defined as abnormal finding requiring non-urgent intervention and grade 5 was defined as acute illness prompting urgent medical intervention. Non-parametric statistical testing was used to assess for significant differences between Tpandemic vs. Tbaseline. Results Fewer paediatric MRI brains were performed during Tpandemic compared to Tbaseline (12.2 vs 14.7 examinations/day). No significant difference was found between the two time periods regarding sex and age (Tbaseline: 557 females (44.63%), 7.95 ± 5.49 years, Tpandemic: 385 females (44.61%), 7.64 ± 6.11 years; p = 1 and p = .079, respectively). MRI brain examinations during Tpandemic had a higher likelihood of being abnormal, 41.25% vs. 25.32% (p
ISSN:1971-4009
2385-1996
DOI:10.1177/19714009231193161