Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29549204›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Appropriate use of medical imaging in two Spanish public hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis.

Jorge Vilar-Palop, Ildefonso Hernandez-Aguado, María Pastor-Valero, José Vilar, Isabel González-Alvarez, Blanca Lumbreras

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Jorge Vilar-PalopCentro Nacional de Dosimetria, Valencia, Spain.
Ildefonso Hernandez-AguadoCentro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica, Barcelona, Spain.
María Pastor-ValeroCentro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica, Barcelona, Spain.
José VilarRadiology Department, Peset Hospital, Valencia, Spain.
Isabel González-AlvarezRadiology Department, San Juan Hospital, Alicante, Spain.
Blanca LumbrerasCentro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Epidemiologia y Salud Publica, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the appropriateness of medical imaging examinations involving radiation and to estimate the effective radiation dose and costs associated.

designCross-sectional retrospective study.

settingTwo Spanish public tertiary hospitals.

participants2022 medical imaging tests were extracted from the radiology information system in February and March of 2014. MRI and ultrasound examinations were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Five outcomes were set independently by at least two researchers according to four guidelines: (1) appropriate; (2) inappropriate; (3) inappropriate due to repetition, if the timing to carry out next diagnostic tests was incorrect according to guidelines; (4) not adequately justified, if the referral form did not include enough clinical information to allow us to understand the patient's clinical condition; and (5) not included in the guidelines, if the referral could not be matched to a clinical scenario described in the guidelines. We estimated the prevalence of the five categories according to relevant clinical and sociodemographic variables and the effective radiation dose and costs for each category.

resultsApproximately half of the imaging tests were deemed as appropriate (967, 47.8%) while one-third (634, 31.4%) were considered inappropriate. 19.6% of the effective dose and 25.2% of the cost were associated with inappropriate tests. Women were less likely than men to have an imaging test classified as appropriate (adjusted OR 0.70,95% CI 0.57 to 0.86). Imaging tests requested by general practitioners were less likely to be considered appropriate than those requested by central services (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93). Mammography and CT were more likely to be appropriate than conventional X-rays.

conclusionThere was a significant frequency of inappropriateness, which resulted in a high percentage of associated effective radiation dose. Percentage of inappropriateness depends on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics such as sex, age, referral physician and medical imaging test.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHospitals, PublicHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPractice Patterns, Physicians'RadiologyRetrospective Studiesappropriatenessevidence guidelinesimaging testjustificationradiation exposure

Identifiers

PMID29549204
PMCPMC5857681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.