ArticleThe Permanente journal2018
Inadequate Clinical Indications in Computed Tomography Chest and Abdomen/Pelvis Scans.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2018. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Completeness of Clinical Histories Accompanying Imaging Orders Using Adapted Open-Source and Closed-Source Large Language Models.Radiology · 2025Article
- Early detection of pancreatic cancer in the era of precision medicine.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextAs the use of computed tomography (CT) scans, which are expensive and result in considerable radiation exposure to the patient, continues to increase, communication between physicians and radiologists remains vital to explain the clinical context for the examination. However, the clinical information provided to the radiologist is often lacking.
objectiveTo determine whether the clinical information provided in CT scan requests meets minimum criteria for requesting the examination.
methodsWe reviewed the clinical indications for 400 CT chest scans and 400 CT abdomen/pelvis scans performed from January 1, 2016, through March 8, 2016. We determined whether each CT study indication was complete on the basis of whether the clinical information included an adequate clinical history with 1) a primary symptom, 2) the location of the symptom, and 3) the duration of the symptom as well as a suspected etiology.
resultsOf the CT chest indications, 56 (14.0%) of the clinical histories were considered complete and 17 (4.3%) had none of the components. A principal etiology was included in 195 (48.8%) of the indications. Of the CT abdomen/pelvis indications, 94 (23.5%) of the clinical histories were complete and 13 (3.3%) had none of the components. A principal etiology was included in 173 (43.3%) of the indications. Only 23 (5.8%) of the CT chest studies and 35 (8.8%) of the CT abdomen/pelvis studies had information considered sufficient for the radiologist.
conclusionThe percentage of complete clinical indications for both CT chest and abdomen/pelvis scans was much lower than 50%, suggesting that more emphasis should be placed on providing complete clinical indications.
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.