Acute Pelvic Pain in the Reproductive Age Group

Variant: 1 Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler adnexa	Usually Appropriate	O
US pelvis transabdominal	Usually Appropriate	O
US pelvis transvaginal	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler pelvis	Usually Appropriate	O
US pelvis transabdominal	Usually Appropriate	O
US pelvis transvaginal	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen and pelvis transabdominal	Usually Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler adnexa	Usually Appropriate	O
US pelvis transvaginal	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen and pelvis transabdominal	Usually Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler pelvis	Usually Appropriate	O
US pelvis transvaginal	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Olga R. Brook, MD^a; Joseph R. Dadour, MD^b; Jessica B. Robbins, MD^c; Ashish P. Wasnik, MD^d; Esma A. Akin, MD^e; Matthew P. Borloz, MD^f; Adrian A. Dawkins, MD^g; Myra K. Feldman, MD^h; Lisa Po-Lan Jones, ⁱ; Lee A. Learman, MD, PhD^j; Kira Melamud, MD^k; Krupa K. Patel-Lippmann, MD^l; Carl J. Saphier, MD^m; Kimberly L. Shampain, MDⁿ; Jennifer W. Uyeda, MD^o; Wendaline VanBuren, MD^p; Stella K. Kang, MD, MS^q.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
D. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
E. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
F. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
G. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
H. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
I. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
J. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
K. US duplex Doppler adnexa

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
L. US pelvis transabdominal

Variant 1: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
M. US pelvis transvaginal

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
D. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
E. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
F. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
G. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
H. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
I. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
J. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
K. US duplex Doppler pelvis

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
L. US pelvis transabdominal

Variant 2: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Gynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either serum or urine). Initial imaging.
M. US pelvis transvaginal

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
D. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
E. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
F. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
G. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
H. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
I. US abdomen and pelvis transabdominal

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
J. US duplex Doppler adnexa

Variant 3: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG positive (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
K. US pelvis transvaginal

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
D. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
E. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
F. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
G. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
H. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
I. US abdomen and pelvis transabdominal

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
J. US duplex Doppler pelvis

Variant 4: Acute pelvic pain in the reproductive age group. Nongynecological etiology suspected, ß-hCG negative (either urine or serum). Initial imaging.
K. US pelvis transvaginal

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Safety Considerations in Pregnant Patients

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	American College of Radiology. ACR-SPR Practice Parameter for Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Patients with Ionizing Radiation. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=23+&releaseId=2.
2.	ACR–ACOG–AIUM–SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Pelvic Ultrasound. 2014; Available at: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/US_Pelvic.pdf. Accessed September 30, 2015.
3.	American College of Radiology. ACR Committee on MR Safety. 2024 ACR Manual on MR Safety. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Radiology-Safety/Manual-on-MR-Safety.pdf.
4.	De Santis M, Straface G, Cavaliere AF, Carducci B, Caruso A. Gadolinium periconceptional exposure: pregnancy and neonatal outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(1):99-101.
5.	Seeber B, Sammel M, Zhou L, Hummel A, Barnhart KT. Endometrial stripe thickness and pregnancy outcome in first-trimester pregnancies with bleeding, pain or both. J Reprod Med. 2007;52(9):757-761.
6.	Cacciatore B. Can the status of tubal pregnancy be predicted with transvaginal sonography? A prospective comparison of sonographic, surgical, and serum hCG findings. Radiology. 1990;177(2):481-484.
7.	American College of Radiology. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Contrast-Manual.
8.	Kao LY, Scheinfeld MH, Chernyak V, Rozenblit AM, Oh S, Dym RJ. Beyond ultrasound: CT and MRI of ectopic pregnancy. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(4):904-11, 2014 Apr.
9.	Huang Q, Zhang M, Zhai RY. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to diagnose cesarean scar pregnancies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 127(2):144-6, 2014 Nov.
10.	Nyberg DA, Mack LA, Laing FC, Jeffrey RB. Early pregnancy complications: endovaginal sonographic findings correlated with human chorionic gonadotropin levels. Radiology. 1988;167(3):619-622.
11.	Srisajjakul S, Prapaisilp P, Bangchokdee S. Magnetic resonance imaging in tubal and non-tubal ectopic pregnancy. [Review]. Eur J Radiol. 93:76-89, 2017 Aug.
12.	Ramanathan S, Raghu V, Ladumor SB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of common, uncommon, and rare implantation sites in ectopic pregnancy. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(12):3425-3435, 2018 12.
13.	Durur-Karakaya A, Seker M, Durur-Subasi I. Diffusion-weighted imaging in ectopic pregnancy: ring of restriction sign. Br J Radiol. 91(1082):20170528, 2018 Feb.
14.	Leong GTT, Leonardi M, Lu C, et al. Doppler Color Scoring System in Women With an Incomplete Miscarriage: Interobserver and Intraobserver Reproducibility Study. J Ultrasound Med. 38(9):2437-2445, 2019 Sep.
15.	Connolly A, Ryan DH, Stuebe AM, Wolfe HM. Reevaluation of discriminatory and threshold levels for serum beta-hCG in early pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(1):65-70.
16.	Braffman BH, Coleman BG, Ramchandani P, et al. Emergency department screening for ectopic pregnancy: a prospective US study. Radiology. 1994;190(3):797-802.
17.	Doubilet PM, Benson CB, Bourne T, et al. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1443-1451.
18.	Frates MC, Doubilet PM, Peters HE, Benson CB. Adnexal sonographic findings in ectopic pregnancy and their correlation with tubal rupture and human chorionic gonadotropin levels. J Ultrasound Med. 33(4):697-703, 2014 Apr.
19.	Levine D. Ectopic Pregnancy. In: Callen PW, ed. Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2008:1034.
20.	American College of Radiology. ACR–ACOG–AIUM–SPR–SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Ultrasound of the Female Pelvis. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=63+&releaseId=2
21.	Doubilet PM, Benson CB, Bourne T, Blaivas M. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. Ultrasound Q. 2014;30(1):3-9.
22.	Crochet JR, Bastian LA, Chireau MV. Does this woman have an ectopic pregnancy?: the rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA. 2013;309(16):1722-1729.
23.	Patel MD, Feldstein VA, Filly RA. The likelihood ratio of sonographic findings for the diagnosis of hemorrhagic ovarian cysts. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(5):607-614; quiz 615.
24.	Alcazar JL, Guerriero S, Laparte C, Ajossa S, Ruiz-Zambrana A, Melis GB. Diagnostic performance of transvaginal gray-scale ultrasound for specific diagnosis of benign ovarian cysts in relation to menopausal status. Maturitas. 68(2):182-8, 2011 Feb.
25.	Goldstein SR, Snyder JR, Watson C, Danon M. Very early pregnancy detection with endovaginal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72(2):200-204.
26.	Mehta TS, Levine D, Beckwith B. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy: is a human chorionic gonadotropin level of 2,000 mIU/mL a reasonable threshold? Radiology. 1997;205(2):569-573.
27.	Barnhart KT, Fay CA, Suescum M, et al. Clinical factors affecting the accuracy of ultrasonography in symptomatic first-trimester pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):299-306.
28.	Moschos E, Twickler DM. Endometrial thickness predicts intrauterine pregnancy in patients with pregnancy of unknown location. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32:929-34.
29.	Lee DC, Swaminathan AK. Sensitivity of ultrasound for the diagnosis of tubo-ovarian abscess: a case report and literature review. J Emerg Med. 2011;40(2):170-175.
30.	Shyu JY, Khurana B, Soto JA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Major Blunt Trauma. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S160-S74.
31.	Duigenan S, Oliva E, Lee SI. Ovarian torsion: diagnostic features on CT and MRI with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(2):W122-131.
32.	Mashiach R, Melamed N, Gilad N, Ben-Shitrit G, Meizner I. Sonographic diagnosis of ovarian torsion: accuracy and predictive factors. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(9):1205-1210.
33.	Varras M, Polyzos D, Perouli E, Noti P, Pantazis I, Akrivis C. Tubo-ovarian abscesses: spectrum of sonographic findings with surgical and pathological correlations. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2003;30(2-3):117-121.
34.	Wattar B, Rimmer M, Rogozinska E, Macmillian M, Khan KS, Al Wattar BH. Accuracy of imaging modalities for adnexal torsion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 128(1):37-44, 2021 01.
35.	Jeong WK, Kim Y, Song SY. Tubo-ovarian abscess: CT and pathological correlation. Clin Imaging 2007;31:414-8.
36.	Gjelland K, Granberg S, Kiserud T, Wentzel-Larsen T, Ekerhovd E. Pregnancies following ultrasound-guided drainage of tubo-ovarian abscess. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(1):136-140.
37.	Linam LE, Darolia R, Naffaa LN, et al. US findings of adnexal torsion in children and adolescents: size really does matter. Pediatr Radiol. 37(10):1013-9, 2007 Oct.
38.	Hiller N, Fux T, Finkelstein A, Mezeh H, Simanovsky N. CT differentiation between tubo-ovarian and appendiceal origin of right lower quadrant abscess: CT, clinical, and laboratory correlation. EMERG. RADIOL.. 23(2):133-9, 2016 Apr.
39.	Wood MM, Romine LE, Lee YK, et al. Spectral Doppler signature waveforms in ultrasonography: a review of normal and abnormal waveforms. Ultrasound Q. 2010;26(2):83-99.
40.	Li W, Zhang Y, Cui Y, Zhang P, Wu X. Pelvic inflammatory disease: evaluation of diagnostic accuracy with conventional MR with added diffusion-weighted imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38(1):193-200.
41.	Sofic A, Husic-Selimovic A, Katica V, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Transvaginal Ultrasonography (TVU) at Ovarian Pain Caused by Benign Ovarian Lesions. Acta Inform Med 2018;26:15-18.
42.	Shadinger LL, Andreotti RF, Kurian RL. Preoperative sonographic and clinical characteristics as predictors of ovarian torsion. J Ultrasound Med. 27(1):7-13, 2008 Jan.
43.	Chiou SY, Lev-Toaff AS, Masuda E, Feld RI, Bergin D. Adnexal torsion: new clinical and imaging observations by sonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(10):1289-1301.
44.	Wang T, Li W, Wu X, et al. Tubo-Ovarian Abscess (with/without Pseudotumor Area) Mimicking Ovarian Malignancy: Role of Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging with Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values. PLoS ONE. 11(2):e0149318, 2016.
45.	Bazot M, Darai E, Hourani R, et al. Deep pelvic endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology. 232(2):379-89, 2004 Aug.
46.	Nizar K, Deutsch M, Filmer S, Weizman B, Beloosesky R, Weiner Z. Doppler studies of the ovarian venous blood flow in the diagnosis of adnexal torsion. J Clin Ultrasound. 37(8):436-9, 2009 Oct.
47.	Kupesic S, Plavsic BM. Adnexal torsion: color Doppler and three-dimensional ultrasound. Abdom Imaging. 35(5):602-6, 2010 Oct.
48.	Navve D, Hershkovitz R, Zetounie E, Klein Z, Tepper R. Medial or lateral location of the whirlpool sign in adnexal torsion: clinical importance. J Ultrasound Med. 32(9):1631-4, 2013 Sep.
49.	Valsky DV, Esh-Broder E, Cohen SM, Lipschuetz M, Yagel S. Added value of the gray-scale whirlpool sign in the diagnosis of adnexal torsion. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(5):630-634.
50.	Molander P, Sjoberg J, Paavonen J, Cacciatore B. Transvaginal power Doppler findings in laparoscopically proven acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 17(3):233-8, 2001 Mar.
51.	Romosan G, Bjartling C, Skoog L, Valentin L. Ultrasound for diagnosing acute salpingitis: a prospective observational diagnostic study. Hum Reprod. 28(6):1569-79, 2013 Jun.
52.	Williams R, Shaw J. Ultrasound scanning in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Emerg Med J. 2007;24(5):359-360.
53.	Aranda-Narvaez JM, Montiel-Casado MC, Gonzalez-Sanchez AJ, et al. [Radiological support for diagnosis of acute appendicitis: use, effectiveness and clinical repercussions]. Cir Esp. 2013;91(9):574-578.
54.	Timor-Tritsch IE, Lerner JP, Monteagudo A, Murphy KE, Heller DS. Transvaginal sonographic markers of tubal inflammatory disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;12(1):56-66.
55.	Miloudi N, Brahem M, Ben Abid S, Mzoughi Z, Arfa N, Tahar Khalfallah M. Acute appendicitis in pregnancy: specific features of diagnosis and treatment. J Visc Surg. 149(4):e275-9, 2012 Aug.
56.	Adhikari S, Blaivas M, Lyon M. Role of bedside transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of tubo-ovarian abscess in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2008;34:429-33.
57.	Abrao MS, Goncalves MO, Dias JA Jr, Podgaec S, Chamie LP, Blasbalg R. Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 22(12):3092-7, 2007 Dec.
58.	Lehnert BE, Gross JA, Linnau KF, Moshiri M. Utility of ultrasound for evaluating the appendix during the second and third trimester of pregnancy. EMERG. RADIOL.. 19(4):293-9, 2012 Aug.
59.	Lazarus E, Mayo-Smith WW, Mainiero MB, Spencer PK. CT in the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in pregnant women. Radiology. 2007;244(3):784-790.
60.	Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, et al. Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology. 2000;217(3):792-797.
61.	Raj MH, Mullins JN, Chi JM, Choy AH, Grimaldi GM, Friedman B. The utility of abdominopelvic CT in pregnant patients with abdominal pain and a negative or inconclusive abdominal MRI. Clin Imaging 2020;59:88-94.
62.	Long SS, Long C, Lai H, Macura KJ. Imaging strategies for right lower quadrant pain in pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(1):4-12.
63.	White WM, Johnson EB, Zite NB, et al. Predictive value of current imaging modalities for the detection of urolithiasis during pregnancy: a multicenter, longitudinal study. J Urol. 2013;189(3):931-934.
64.	Elwagdy S, Ghoneim S, Moussa S, Ewis I. Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) methods in the evaluation of calcular and non-calcular ureteric obstructive uropathy. World J Urol. 2008;26(3):263-274.
65.	Theilen LH, Mellnick VM, Longman RE, et al. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging for suspected appendicitis in pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 212(3):345.e1-6, 2015 Mar.
66.	Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh AD, Siewert B, Ngo L, Rofsky NM. MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology. 2006;238(3):891-899.
67.	Raman SS, Lu DS, Kadell BM, Vodopich DJ, Sayre J, Cryer H. Accuracy of nonfocused helical CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a 5-year review. AJR. 2002; 178(6):1319-1325.
68.	Amitai MM, Katorza E, Guranda L, et al. Role of Emergency Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Workup of Suspected Appendicitis in Pregnant Women. Israel Medical Association Journal: Imaj. 18(10):600-604, 2016 Oct.
69.	Al-Katib S, Sokhandon F, Farah M. MRI for appendicitis in pregnancy: is seeing believing? clinical outcomes in cases of appendix nonvisualization. Abdom Radiol. 41(12):2455-2459, 2016 12.
70.	Rao PM, Feltmate CM, Rhea JT, Schulick AH, Novelline RA. Helical computed tomography in differentiating appendicitis and acute gynecologic conditions. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(3):417-421
71.	Wallace CA, Petrov MS, Soybel DI, Ferzoco SJ, Ashley SW, Tavakkolizadeh A. Influence of imaging on the negative appendectomy rate in pregnancy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(1):46-50.
72.	Shin I, An C, Lim JS, Kim MJ, Chung YE. T1 bright appendix sign to exclude acute appendicitis in pregnant women. Eur Radiol. 27(8):3310-3316, 2017 Aug.
73.	Wi SA, Kim DJ, Cho ES, Kim KA. Diagnostic performance of MRI for pregnant patients with clinically suspected appendicitis. Abdom Radiol. 43(12):3456-3461, 2018 12.
74.	Shetty MK, Garrett NM, Carpenter WS, Shah YP, Roberts C. Abdominal computed tomography during pregnancy for suspected appendicitis: a 5-year experience at a maternity hospital. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 31(1):8-13, 2010 Feb.
75.	van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA. Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology. 249(1):97-106, 2008 Oct.
76.	Spencer JA, Chahal R, Kelly A, Taylor K, Eardley I, Lloyd SN. Evaluation of painful hydronephrosis in pregnancy: magnetic resonance urographic patterns in physiological dilatation versus calculous obstruction. J Urol. 2004;171(1):256-260.
77.	Torkzad MR, Bremme K, Hellgren M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in diagnosis of pelvic vein thrombosis during pregnancy. Thromb Res. 2010;126(2):107-112.
78.	Kim HC, Yang DM, Kim SW, Park SJ. Reassessment of CT images to improve diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected acute appendicitis and an equivocal preoperative CT interpretation. Eur Radiol. 22(6):1178-85, 2012 Jun.
79.	Kaiser AM, Jiang JK, Lake JP, et al. The management of complicated diverticulitis and the role of computed tomography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(4):910-917.
80.	Aras A, Karaman E, Peksen C, Kiziltan R, Kotan MC. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant versus non-pregnant women: A comparative study. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 62(7):622-627, 2016 Oct.
81.	Segev L, Segev Y, Rayman S, Nissan A, Sadot E. The diagnostic performance of ultrasound for acute appendicitis in pregnant and young nonpregnant women: A case-control study. Int J Surg. 34:81-85, 2016 Oct.
82.	Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 241(1):83-94, 2006 Oct.
83.	Crocker C, Akl M, Abdolell M, Kamali M, Costa AF. Ultrasound and CT in the Diagnosis of Appendicitis: Accuracy With Consideration of Indeterminate Examinations According to STARD Guidelines. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 215(3):639-644, 2020 09.
84.	Ranieri DM, Enzerra MD, Pickhardt PJ. Prevalence of Appendicoliths Detected at CT in Adults With Suspected Appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 216(3):677-682, 2021 03.
85.	White WM, Zite NB, Gash J, Waters WB, Thompson W, Klein FA. Low-dose computed tomography for the evaluation of flank pain in the pregnant population. J Endourol. 2007;21(11):1255-1260.
86.	Tang SJ, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DU, Pooler BD. Positive Oral Contrast Solution at MDCT for Suspected Acute Appendicitis in Adults: Rate of Appendiceal Luminal Filling of Normal and Inflamed Appendixes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 213(5):W211-W217, 2019 11.
87.	Wadhwani A, Guo L, Saude E, et al. Intravenous and Oral Contrast vs Intravenous Contrast Alone Computed Tomography for the Visualization of Appendix and Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Adult Emergency Department Patients. Can Assoc Radiol J. 67(3):234-41, 2016 Aug.
88.	Yildirim D, Ozturk O, Tutar O, et al. A new method for computer-assisted detection, definition and differentiation of the urinary calculi. Ren Fail. 2014;36(8):1278-1282.
89.	Naeger DM, Chang SD, Kolli P, Shah V, Huang W, Thoeni RF. Neutral vs positive oral contrast in diagnosing acute appendicitis with contrast-enhanced CT: sensitivity, specificity, reader confidence and interpretation time. Br J Radiol. 84(1001):418-26, 2011 May.
90.	Jepperson MA, Cernigliaro JG, Ibrahim el-SH, Morin RL, Haley WE, Thiel DD. In vivo comparison of radiation exposure of dual-energy CT versus low-dose CT versus standard CT for imaging urinary calculi. J Endourol. 29(2):141-6, 2015 Feb.
91.	Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 366(17):1596-605, 2012 Apr 26.
92.	Soulen MC, Fishman EK, Goldman SM, Gatewood OM. Bacterial renal infection: role of CT. Radiology. 1989; 171(3):703-707.
93.	Zissin R, Osadchy A, Gayer G, Kitay-Cohen Y. Extrarenal manifestations of severe acute pyelonephritis: CT findings in 21 cases. EMERG. RADIOL.. 13(2):73-7, 2006 Nov.
94.	Sippola S, Virtanen J, Tammilehto V, et al. The Accuracy of Low-dose Computed Tomography Protocol in Patients With Suspected Acute Appendicitis: The OPTICAP Study. Ann Surg. 271(2):332-338, 2020 02.
95.	Tamburrini S, Brunetti A, Brown M, Sirlin C, Casola G. Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings. Eur Radiol. 17(8):2055-61, 2007 Aug.
96.	Basili G, Romano N, Bimbi M, Lorenzetti L, Pietrasanta D, Goletti O. Postpartum ovarian vein thrombosis. JSLS. 2011;15(2):268-271.
97.	Loud PA, Katz DS, Bruce DA, Klippenstein DL, Grossman ZD. Deep venous thrombosis with suspected pulmonary embolism: detection with combined CT venography and pulmonary angiography. Radiology. 2001;219(2):498-502.
98.	Desai V, Cox M, Deshmukh S, Roth CG. Contrast-enhanced or noncontrast CT for renal colic: utilizing urinalysis and patient history of urolithiasis to decide. Emergency Radiology. 25(5):455-460, 2018 Oct.EMERG. RADIOL.. 25(5):455-460, 2018 Oct.
99.	Anderson SW, Soto JA, Lucey BC, et al. Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected appendicitis: the use of oral and IV contrast material versus IV contrast material only. AJR. 2009; 193(5):1282-1288.
100.	Kim BS, Hwang IK, Choi YW, et al. Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: prospective comparative study. Acta Radiol. 2005;46(7):756-763.
101.	Hill BC, Johnson SC, Owens EK, Gerber JL, Senagore AJ. CT scan for suspected acute abdominal process: impact of combinations of IV, oral, and rectal contrast. World J Surg. 2010;34(4):699-703.
102.	Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G. Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):396-401.
103.	Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, Schmidlin FR, Iselin CE, Becker CD. Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(4):927-933.
104.	Inoue A, Furukawa A, Nitta N, et al. Accuracy, criteria, and clinical significance of visual assessment on diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient quantification for diagnosing acute appendicitis. Abdom Radiol. 44(10):3235-3245, 2019 10.
105.	Leeuwenburgh MM, Wiezer MJ, Wiarda BM, et al. Accuracy of MRI compared with ultrasound imaging and selective use of CT to discriminate simple from perforated appendicitis. Br J Surg. 101(1):e147-55, 2014 Jan.
106.	Rha SE, Byun JY, Jung SE, et al. CT and MR imaging features of adnexal torsion. Radiographics. 2002;22(2):283-294.
107.	Hiller N, Appelbaum L, Simanovsky N, Lev-Sagi A, Aharoni D, Sella T. CT features of adnexal torsion. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(1):124-129.
108.	Muthusami P, Bhuvaneswari V, Elangovan S, Dorairajan LN, Ramesh A. The role of static magnetic resonance urography in the evaluation of obstructive uropathy. Urology. 81(3):623-7, 2013 Mar.
109.	Lourenco P, Brown J, Leipsic J, Hague C. The current utility of ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Clin Imaging. 40(5):944-8, 2016 Sep-Oct.
110.	Choi NJ, Rha SE, Jung SE, et al. Ruptured endometrial cysts as a rare cause of acute pelvic pain: can we differentiate them from ruptured corpus luteal cysts on CT scan?. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 35(4):454-8, 2011 Jul-Aug.
111.	Geerdink TH, Augustinus S, Atema JJ, Jensch S, Vrouenraets BC, de Castro SMM. Validation of a Scoring System to Distinguish Uncomplicated From Complicated Appendicitis. J Surg Res. 258:231-238, 2021 02.
112.	Shirah BH, Shirah HA, Alhaidari WA, Elraghi MA, Chughtai MA. The role of preoperative graded compression ultrasound in detecting acute appendicitis and influencing the negative appendectomy rate. Abdom Radiol. 42(1):109-114, 2017 01.
113.	Birchard KR, Brown MA, Hyslop WB, Firat Z, Semelka RC. MRI of acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnant patients. AJR. 2005;184(2):452-458.
114.	Ulusan S, Koc Z, Tokmak N. Accuracy of sonography for detecting renal stone: comparison with CT. J Clin Ultrasound. 2007; 35(5):256-261.
115.	Israel GM, Malguria N, McCarthy S, Copel J, Weinreb J. MRI vs. ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 28(2):428-33, 2008 Aug.
116.	Sternberg KM, Pais VM Jr, Larson T, Han J, Hernandez N, Eisner B. Is Hydronephrosis on Ultrasound Predictive of Ureterolithiasis in Patients with Renal Colic?. J Urol. 196(4):1149-52, 2016 Oct.
117.	Yan JW, McLeod SL, Edmonds ML, Sedran RJ, Theakston KD. Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: a prospective cohort study. CJEM, Can. j. emerg. med. care. 17(1):38-45, 2015 Jan.
118.	Oto A, Ernst RD, Shah R, et al. Right-lower-quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis in pregnant women: evaluation with MR imaging--initial experience. Radiology. 2005;234(2):445-451.
119.	Fields JM, Fischer JI, Anderson KL, Mangili A, Panebianco NL, Dean AJ. The ability of renal ultrasound and ureteral jet evaluation to predict 30-day outcomes in patients with suspected nephrolithiasis. Am J Emerg Med. 33(10):1402-6, 2015 Oct.
120.	Taylor M, Woo MY, Pageau P, et al. Ultrasonography for the prediction of urological surgical intervention in patients with renal colic. Emerg Med J. 33(2):118-23, 2016 Feb.
121.	Leeuwenburgh MM, Lameris W, van Randen A, Bossuyt PM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J. Optimizing imaging in suspected appendicitis (OPTIMAP-study): a multicenter diagnostic accuracy study of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Study Protocol. BMC Emerg Med. 2010;10:19.
122.	Abdel-Gawad M, Kadasne RD, Elsobky E, Ali-El-Dein B, Monga M. A Prospective Comparative Study of Color Doppler Ultrasound with Twinkling and Noncontrast Computerized Tomography for the Evaluation of Acute Renal Colic. Journal of Urology. 196(3):757-62, 2016 Sep.J Urol. 196(3):757-62, 2016 Sep.
123.	Fonseca AL, Schuster KM, Kaplan LJ, Maung AA, Lui FY, Davis KA. The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of suspected appendicitis in pregnancy: shortened length of stay without increase in hospital charges.[Erratum appears in JAMA Surg. 2014 Jul;149(7):749]. JAMA Surg. 149(7):687-93, 2014 Jul.
124.	Karul M, Berliner C, Keller S, Tsui TY, Yamamura J. Imaging of appendicitis in adults. [Review]. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed. 186(6):551-8, 2014 Jun.
125.	American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Safe and Optimal Performance of Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=89+&releaseId=2.
126.	Pedrosa I, Lafornara M, Pandharipande PV, Goldsmith JD, Rofsky NM. Pregnant patients suspected of having acute appendicitis: effect of MR imaging on negative laparotomy rate and appendiceal perforation rate. Radiology. 250(3):749-57, 2009 Mar.
127.	American College of Radiology. ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SMFM-SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetrical Ultrasound. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=28+&releaseId=2.
128.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
129.	Roy C, Saussine C, LeBras Y, et al. Assessment of painful ureterohydronephrosis during pregnancy by MR urography. Eur Radiol. 1996;6(3):334-338.
130.	Mullins JK, Semins MJ, Hyams ES, Bohlman ME, Matlaga BR. Half Fourier single-shot turbo spin-echo magnetic resonance urography for the evaluation of suspected renal colic in pregnancy. Urology. 2012;79(6):1252-1255.
131.	Catalano C, Pavone P, Laghi A, et al. Role of MR venography in the evaluation of deep venous thrombosis. Acta Radiol. 1997;38(5):907-912.
132.	Spritzer CE, Arata MA, Freed KS. Isolated pelvic deep venous thrombosis: relative frequency as detected with MR imaging. Radiology. 2001; 219(2):521-525.
133.	Ueda H, Togashi K, Kataoka ML, et al. Adnexal masses caused by pelvic inflammatory disease: MR appearance. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2002;1(4):207-215.
134.	Wilkinson C, Sanderson A. Adnexal torsion -- a multimodality imaging review. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(5):476-483.
135.	American College of Radiology. ACR-SPR Practice Parameter for Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Adolescents and Women with Ionizing Radiation. Available at: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/Pregnant_Patients.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2014.
136.	American College of Radiology. ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SRU Practice Paramater for the Performance of Obstetrical Ultrasound. Available at: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/US_Obstetrical.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2014.
137.	Expert Panel on MR Safety, Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging. 37(3):501-30, 2013 Mar.
138.	American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/Contrast-Manual. Accessed October 20, 2014.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.