FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 338:1080-1081 April 9, 1998 Number 15 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited

Second edition. Edited by Carol M. Rumack, Stephanie R. Wilson, and J. William Charboneau. 1832 pp. in two volumes, illustrated. St. Louis, Mosby, 1998. $225. ISBN 0-8151-8683-5.

The future of diagnostic sonography in today's era of cost containment is unclear. As compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), sonography has the disadvantages of a limited field of view, poorer resolution, operator dependence, and interference by bone and air. In most regions of the body, sonography is considered a good screening test, but if you really need an answer you go to CT or MRI. With pressure to do as few studies as possible, why not go straight to CT or MRI? Because sonography does have advantages: flexibility, real-time monitoring, low cost, no ionizing radiation, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.