ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2017
Appropriate imaging utilization in Japan: a survey of accredited radiology training hospitals.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Green radiology (part 1): environmental sustainability and energy consumption in medical imaging, with perspectives from Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- The Choosing Wisely Initiative and MRIs: Over- and Under-Diagnosis in Japan and Myanmar.Cureus · 2021Review
- Large hospital variation in the utilization of Post-procedural CT to detect pulmonary embolism/Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients Undergoing Total Knee or Hip Replacement Surgery: Japanese Nationwide Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database Study.The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
- The day when computers read between lines.Japanese journal of radiology · 2019Review
- Summary of the proceedings of the International Forum 2018: "Value-based radiology".Insights into imaging · 2019Article
- Diagnostic Radiology Service in Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Global and Japanese regional variations in radiologist potential workload for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging examinations.Japanese journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo survey whether imaging is being performed appropriately in Japan, and to survey whether radiologists intervene to ensure imaging requests are appropriate.
methodsAn online survey was sent to radiologists at accredited radiology training hospitals. The survey included the radiologists' perspectives on whether imaging is performed appropriately at their institutions and whether they intervene if the indication for imaging is inappropriate/ambiguous.
resultsThe response rate was 87.3% (165/189). We observed marked variability in the frequencies that imaging not recommended by the guidelines was performed among modalities and/or body parts; the responses "very frequently/frequently performed" were more common for breast cancer related imaging examinations and for head CT/MRI. The respondents frequently reported that inappropriate/ambiguous indications included requests to expand the craniocaudal range or to perform whole-body imaging. In 80% of the hospitals (132/165), radiologists contacted the physicians who requested unrecommended examinations; the number of CT and MRI examinations that full-time radiologists need to interpret in a half-day session was significantly smaller at these hospitals (median 18 vs 24, P = 0.032).
conclusionWe conducted a survey to investigate appropriate imaging utilization in Japan. At the hospitals with numerous examinations to interpret, full-time radiologists may find it difficult to ensure that examinations are ordered appropriately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28916887What 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.