Utilization of MRI technique in the patient population admitted between 2011 and 2015 to the University Clinical Hospital in Olsztyn
More details
Hide details
Department of Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
Ewa Bejer-Oleńska   

Department of Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury, Warszawska 30, 10-082 Olsztyn, Poland. Tel.: +4889 524 61 33; fax: +4889 524 61 33.
Submission date: 2016-09-27
Acceptance date: 2017-03-09
Online publication date: 2017-07-05
Publication date: 2019-12-20
Pol. Ann. Med. 2017;24(2):199–204
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of the high-tech diagnostic-imaging methods, popular due to non-invasiveness, painlessness and delivery of high-volume information in a short time.

The aim of study was to analyze the prevalence of specific diagnoses and demographics of the patient population examined using MRI during 2011–2015 at the University Clinical Hospital in Olsztyn (UCH).

Material and methods:
Data from the study population (gender, age and diagnosis) were collected over a 5-year period and SPSS software was used to analyze the frequencies of descriptive variables.

Results and discussion:
This report presents data and demographic analyses generated during a 5-year utilization of the Siemens Magnetom Trio. Over this time, there were 12381 patients and 13298 visits, averaging 2660 visits per year. The scans were more commonly performed on female than male patients, 61.3% and 38.7% respectively. Patient age ranged from 2 to 92 years, and the largest group, third part of all visits, consisted of visitors between 51 and 60 years. During these 5 years, MRI diagnoses were applied in 19 out of 26 main letter-coded categories of diseases and health problems as classified by the ICD-10. More than half of all visits concerned the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue; less common, but still frequent were diseases of the nervous system; neoplasms; symptoms, signs and clinical findings not elsewhere classified; injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes.

This study reports on MRI utilization at the UCH, and discusses the use of MRI in the best interest of patient.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This work was supported by the European Union with the European funds POPW.01.03.00-28.014/09-00.
Blanco RT, Ojala R, Kariniemi J, Perälä J, Niinimäki J, Tervonen O. Interventional and inoperative MRI at low field scanner – a review. Eur J Radiol. 2005;56:130–142.
Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071–2077.
Hartwig V, Giovannetti G, Vanello N, Lombardi M, Landini L, Sim S. Biological effects and safety in magnetic resonance imaging: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(6):1778–1798.
Patenaude Y, Pugash D, Lim K, et al. The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the obstetric patient. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014;36(4):349–355.
Doi K. Diagnostic imaging over the last 50 years: research and development in medical imaging science and technology. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(13):R5–R27.
Rinck PA. Magnetic resonance in medicine. The Basic Textbook of the European Magnetic Resonance Forum. 9th ed. [E-version 9.1 beta].
OECD. Health at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015 [, Accessed 08 March 2017].
OECD. Health at a Glance : OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD, Publishing; 2011 [ Accessed 08 March 2017].
Hendee WR, Becker GJ, Borgstede JP, et al. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology. 2010;257(1):240–245.
Oikarinen H, Karttunen A, Pääkkö E, Tervonen O. Survey of inappropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(5):729–733.
Lehnert BE, Bree RL. Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical centre: how critical is the need for improved decision support? J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(3):192–197.
Bekiesińska-Figatowska M. On unwarranted performance of MRI scans. Pol J Radiol. 2014;79:239–242.
Geitung JT. Modern radiology and the use of resources: too much technology (?) – Not at all. Acta Radiol. 2016;51(1):3–5.
Małek Ł, Rużyłło W. From zeugmatography to cardiac magnetic resonance. Nauka. 2012;1:153–159 [in Polish].
Niwa K, Uchisshiba M, Aotsuka H, et al. Systematic diagnostic method using magnetic resonance imaging to analyze viscero-bronchial-cardiovascular anomalies in pediatric patients with congenital heart disease. Int J Angiol. 1996;5(2):70–77.
Chalela JA, Kidwell CS, Nentwich LM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in emergency assessment of patients with suspected acute stroke: a prospective comparison. Lancet. 2007;369(9558):293–298.
Ge Y. Multiple sclerosis: the role of MR imaging. AJNR AM J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(6):1165–1176.
Zulpe NS, Chowhan SS, Pawar VP. Statistical Approach for MRI brain tumor qualification. Int J Comput Appl. 2011;35(7):13–16.
Walecki J, Jurkiewicz E. Imagine diagnostic of the central nervous system neoplasms. Pol Prz Neurol. 2007;3(3)155–171 [in Polish].
WHO. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. 10th Revision. ICD-10 Version. [ Accessed 08 March 2017].
Bradley D, Bradley KE. The value of diagnostic medical imaging. N C Med J. 2014;75(2):121–125.
Nuti S, Vainieri M. Managingwaiting times in diagnostic medical imaging. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):e00125510.1136/bmjopen-2012-001255.
Smith-Bindan R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in Large Integrated Healthcare Systems: 1996–2010. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2400–2409.
Niska R, Bhuiya F, Xu J. National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 2007 emergency department summary. Natl Health Stat Rep. 2010;26:1–32.
Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB. Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Affair. 2008;27(6):1491–1502.
Freid VM, Berstein AB. Health care utilization among adults aged 55–64 years: how has it changed over the past 10 years? NCHS Data Brief. 2010;(March(32)):1–8.