ArticleAcademic radiology2012
Toward evidence-based decisions in diagnostic radiology: a research and rating process for multiple decision-makers.
Article in Academic radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of diagnostic imaging tests and the development of evidence-based guidelines, reviews, and other materials have both undergone substantial growth in recent years. However, the proliferation of evidence-based information has not translated into the universal deployment of medical and coverage policy for diagnostic imaging that is similarly evidence-based. One possible reason is the failure of those institutions generating evidence-based information to format findings in an accessible manner for all relevant stakeholders. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has developed a simple and transparent method for rating evidence that is accessible to clinicians, patients, payers, and other policy makers. The authors describe this process in relation to three imaging-based examples (computed tomographic colonography, coronary computed tomographic angiography, and positron emission tomography for dementia neuropathology). The issues raised, controversies considered, and use of the ratings in setting policy are discussed in relation to each example.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.