TY - JOUR
T1 - ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Ingested or Aspirated Foreign Body-Child
AU - Expert Panel on Pediatric Imaging:
AU - Meyers, Mariana L.
AU - Moore, Michael
AU - Baker, Joe B.
AU - Clemenshaw, Michael N.
AU - Cooper, Matthew L.
AU - Hammer, Matthew R.
AU - John, Susan D.
AU - Kulaylat, Afif
AU - Li, Joyce
AU - Pathak, Sagar J.
AU - Samet, Jonathan D.
AU - Sammer, Marla B.K.
AU - Schooler, Gary R.
AU - Sura, Amit S.
AU - Walsh, Catharine M.
AU - Iyer, Ramesh S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2025 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2026/1/1
Y1 - 2026/1/1
N2 - Ingestion or aspiration of foreign bodies (FBs) is a common reason for pediatric emergency department visits. In this document, three variants were developed. In Variant 1 (suspect ingested or aspirated FB, initial imaging), neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis radiographs are usually appropriate to identify the presence and location of a swallowed or inhaled FB. Low-dose noncontrast chest CT may also be appropriate when there is high suspicion for radiolucent FB. In Variant 2 (suspect ingested FB, initial radiographs negative, next imaging study), chest CT without contrast is usually appropriate, although fluoroscopic esophagram or CT abdomen and pelvis may be appropriate. If known ingested water beads, abdomen ultrasound may be helpful. In Variant 3 (suspect aspirated FB, initial radiographs negative, next imaging study), CT chest without contrast is usually appropriate while decubitus chest radiographs and fluoroscopy studies are usually not appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
AB - Ingestion or aspiration of foreign bodies (FBs) is a common reason for pediatric emergency department visits. In this document, three variants were developed. In Variant 1 (suspect ingested or aspirated FB, initial imaging), neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis radiographs are usually appropriate to identify the presence and location of a swallowed or inhaled FB. Low-dose noncontrast chest CT may also be appropriate when there is high suspicion for radiolucent FB. In Variant 2 (suspect ingested FB, initial radiographs negative, next imaging study), chest CT without contrast is usually appropriate, although fluoroscopic esophagram or CT abdomen and pelvis may be appropriate. If known ingested water beads, abdomen ultrasound may be helpful. In Variant 3 (suspect aspirated FB, initial radiographs negative, next imaging study), CT chest without contrast is usually appropriate while decubitus chest radiographs and fluoroscopy studies are usually not appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105026639415
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105026639415#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2025.10.028
DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2025.10.028
M3 - Article
C2 - 41485865
AN - SCOPUS:105026639415
SN - 1558-349X
VL - 23
SP - 143
EP - 158
JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR
JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR
IS - 1
ER -