Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28243765›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2017

Clinical information available during emergency department imaging order entry and radiologist interpretation.

Tarek N Hanna, Saurabh Rohatgi, Haris N Shekhani, Ishaan Amit Dave, Jamlik-Omari Johnson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tarek N HannaDivision of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA. tarek.hanna@emory.edu.
Saurabh RohatgiDivision of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA.
Haris N ShekhaniDivision of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA.
Ishaan Amit DaveRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Jamlik-Omari JohnsonDivision of Emergency Radiology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Midtown Hospital, 550 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the proportion of Emergency Department (ED) radiology examinations ordered or interpreted prior to a documented clinical assessment. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe collected 600 retrospective consecutive ED cases consisting equally of patients whose first ED imaging examination was computed tomography (CT), radiography (XR), or ultrasonography (US). For each patient, the following times were documented: ED arrival, ED departure, ED length of stay (LOS), imaging order entry, image availability, radiology report availability, triage note, ED provider note, and laboratory results.

resultsMean age was 44.2, 66.5% female, and mean ED LOS was 326.2 min. ED LOS was longer for patients who received CT versus XR (343.9 vs. 311.3; p = 0.029). In 25.5% of XR, 10% of CT, and 8% of US cases, the imaging exam was completed before the ED provider note was started. In 20.5% of XR, 6.5% of CT, and 6% of US cases, the radiologist did not have the ED provider note available prior to completing their diagnostic interpretation. In 33.4% of all cases and 57.5% of XR cases, incomplete clinical documentation (triage note, provider note, lab results) was available during radiology report creation. CT and US exams more frequently had clinical data available prior to radiologist interpretation than XR (p < 0.0001). Radiologist turn-around-time was unaffected by clinical information availability.

conclusionEight percent of ED CT and 10% of ED US examinations were ordered and completed before documented clinical assessment. Thirty-three percent had incomplete clinical assessment performed prior to image interpretation. Further investigation is needed to determine impact on interpretation accuracy.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingDocumentationEmergency Service, HospitalMedical Order Entry SystemsAdultFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTriageClinical informationEmergency departmentHistoryRadiologyTurn-around timeWorkflow

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.