What? Me worry?

No need to worry.
Over 5,000 patient records were scrutinized, and the discovery?
An average of seven percent of abnormal findings were ignored.
Doesn't sound too bad, right?
Only 0.07 ignored. Only one of every fourteen.
Just an abnormal finding. Don't get all excited. Move along.

So, why did I have that test performed if you weren't going to act on the result anyway?
Arch. of Int. Med., 2009. 169: 1123-9.

Conversely, 93% were acted upon. So perhaps this is actually pretty good news.
What it really gets me thinking is a trusted second opinion is golden.
And as always, don't leave any questions you have concerning your health go unanswered.
Insist upon a full explanation of test results.

More to worry about. Or not.
Discussion on dangers of dose from radiography seem to me to have been building over the past few years.
Could just be I'm paying more attention, of course...

Lovely quote:
'Joseph M. Price, M.D., of Carsonville, Mich., wrote, "I believe that it is a rare physician ordering standard-type CT scans (such as abdominal studies) who has the slightest idea of the actual level of total radiation to which the patient is being exposed."'
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/14624

And why be concerned?

Because of his further quote:
'...what particularly caught my attention was that the median dose-length product (DLP) of CCTA examinations was a little greater than the dose of an abdominal CT study, or the equivalent of 600 chest x-rays."
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/301/22/2324
The above printed in JAMA, 2009. 301: 2324

Whether or not your CT is being ordered appropriately, do you really, really, really have to be exposed to the median level of radiation discussed above?

And the study says:
"As a result of the dose reduction program, patients' estimated median radiation dose decreased by 53.3% (P<0.001), href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/14624">www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/14624

Sourced from: Raff G, et al "Radiation dose from cardiac computed tomography before and after implementation of radiation dose-reduction techniques" JAMA 2009; 301: 2340-48.
And:
Price J "Radiation doses associated with cardiac computed tomography angiography" JAMA 2009; 301: 2324.

Did that just say dose went down by half?
Yes. Yes it did.

Sure hope my radiologist follows these discussions.
And acts on them.

EC
Why get a lame Joke of the Day, or LOL Cat of the Day, or Some-other-crappy-thing-of-the-day, when you could be enjoying

-the exciting-

Radiology Picture of the Day

http://www.radpod.org/author/admin/

Diagnostic radiation fears driving you to drink?:
http://www.moonshine-still.com/

Masochistic teetotaller and need more to worry about but won't drink?:
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/soft.html