tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8228844.post110907862097718629..comments2024-03-26T09:54:09.992+05:30Comments on Sumer's Radiology Blog: Jounal ClubSumer Sethihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10096119373804793447noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8228844.post-1109229663828498122005-02-24T12:51:00.000+05:302005-02-24T12:51:00.000+05:30that was a well made point! inability to get a his...that was a well made point! inability to get a histopathological diagnosis on CT is a definite setback!<br />sumerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8228844.post-1109204154378703232005-02-24T05:45:00.000+05:302005-02-24T05:45:00.000+05:30not to mention the advantage of avoidance of sedat...not to mention the advantage of avoidance of sedation in some cases, especially for kids<br /><br />but it's another burden on CT's likely taking longer to get, adding another step to get a report vs directly visualizing by GI, <br />more importantly no ability to biospy lesions, particularly the ulcers that require biopsy in the stomach, no chance to biospy for h. pylori or to get snip of or look at the esophagus on the way out...<br />I know this study is suggesting screening use but a screening scope can instantly be a fully diagnostic test if it is needed, eliminating an entire step that would have been added if a lesion was picked up on CT. Same sort of argument with the virtual colonoscopy vs actual scope. (but with higher procedure risk in the colonoscopy) Both good debates though as screening is becoming more important to the patients and as their numbers increase we need to find the best most cost effective tests.<br /><br />mcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com