The essence of the Japan Radiological Society/Japanese College of Radiology Imaging Guideline

Abstract

Diagnostic imaging is undoubtedly important in modern medicine, and final clinical decisions are often made based on it. Fortunately, Japan has the highest numbers of diagnostic imaging instruments, such as CT and MRI devices, and boasts easy access to them as well as a high level of diagnostic accuracy. In consequence, a very large number of imaging examinations are performed, but diagnostic instruments are installed in so many medical facilities that expert management of these examinations tends to be insufficient. Particularly, in order to avoid risks, clinicians have recently become indifferent to indications of imaging modalities and tend to rely on CT or MRI resulting in increasing the number of imaging examinations in Japan. This is a serious problem from the viewpoints of avoidance of unnecessary exposure and medical economy. Under these circumstances, the Japan Radiological Society and Japanese College of Radiology jointly initiated the preparation of new guidelines for diagnostic imaging. However, the field of diagnostic imaging is extremely wide, and it is impossible to cover all diseases. Therefore, in drafting the guidelines, we selected important diseases and focused on “showing evidence and suggestions in the form of clinical questions (CQs)” concerning clinically encountered questions and “describing routine imaging techniques presently considered to be standards to guarantee the quality of imaging examinations”. In so doing, we adhered to the basic principles of assuming the readers to be “radiologists specializing in diagnostic imaging”, “simultaneously respecting the global standards and attending to the situation in Japan”, and “making the guidelines consistent with those of other scientific societies related to imaging”. As a result, the guidelines became the largest ever, consisting of 152 CQs, nine areas of imaging techniques, and seven reviews, but no other guidelines in the world summarize problems concerning diagnostic imaging in the form of CQs. In this sense, the guidelines are considered to reflect the abilities of diagnostic radiologists in Japan. The contents of the guidelines are essential knowledge for radiologists, but we believe that they are also of use to general clinicians and clinical radiological technicians. While the number and contents of CQs are still insufficient, and while chapters such as those on imaging in children and emergency imaging need to be supplemented, the guidelines will be serially improved through future revisions. Lastly, we would like to extend our sincere thanks to the 153 members of the drafting committee who authored the guidelines, 12 committee chairpersons who coordinated their efforts, six members of the secretariat, and affiliates of related scientific societies who performed external evaluation.