Observational studyLa Radiologia medica2017
Inappropriateness of diagnostic imaging examinations in the inpatient setting: a case study research.
Observational study in La Radiologia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring appropriateness of diagnostic imaging: a scoping review.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- An economic impact of incorrect referrals for MRI and CT scans: A retrospective analysis.Health science reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of our study was to audit the clinical appropriateness of the prescriptions of whole body CT (WB-CT), PET-CT and chest X-rays (CXRs) performed at Tor Vergata University Hospital in the inpatient setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsWB-CT, PET-CT and CXRs examinations were retrospectively analysed in the period between January and December 2014. CXR examinations were divided into bedside CXRs and traditional CXRs. The appropriateness of the examinations was defined according the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. Inappropriate examinations were divided into six inappropriateness categories in accordance with the European Union Medical Imaging Guidelines.
resultsAppropriateness was suboptimal for all analysed techniques CXRs (A = 38%, I = 62%); bedside CXRs (A = 45%, I = 53%); WB-CT (A = 45%, I = 55%); PET-CT (A = 48%, I = 52%). With respect to WB-CT the highest rate of inappropriate imaging prescriptions came from the haematology clinical operative unit (OU) (44%) and emergency medicine (33%); with respect to PET-CT, the thoracic surgery OU (53%) and haematology OU (48%) showed the most inappropriate prescriptions. For CXRs, the percentage of inappropriateness was consistently distributed among all surgical OUs. For bedside CXRs, the largest inappropriate prescribers were the emergency medicine OU (48%), the cardiac surgery OU (58%), the intensive care OU (67%) and anaesthesia resuscitation OU (78%). The most represented classes of inappropriateness were 2, 3, 4 and 6.
conclusionsThe elimination of inappropriate prescriptions would result in an annual savings of approximately 390,000 Euro. An implementation plan to increase prescription appropriateness is under development by our group.
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.