This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Cardiovascular System  • Radiologic Imaging  • Computed Tomography  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paolo Raggi, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1072.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

INTRODUCTION

Though the arguments put forward by Dr O’Malley appear logical, the tenet on which they are based is an erroneous interpretation of the role of imaging. The core of his disputing the use of atherosclerosis imaging modalities is that there is no proof that the performance of screening tests saves lives and that it is expensive. Because most people with a cardiovascular event have at least 1 risk factor, he adds, the added benefit of atherosclerosis screening is small at best. But in fact, when were diagnostic tests ever performed "to save lives"? An IMT measurement or calcium screening cannot be charged with the task of saving human lives. They are performed to help physicians find and focus on a problem for which the solution is their sole responsibility. Tests do not save lives, physicians do. Tests are performed to define—and refine—risk assessment, then patients . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, and the Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Md.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?