ArticleEmergency radiology2019
Emergency department imaging superusers.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Imaging Case Volumes in Aseer Region: A Retrospective Study.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- How the Workload and Outcome of Imaging Examinations Changed During the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
- Awareness of relative CT utilization among peers is not associated with changes in imaging requests among emergency department providers in a large county hospital.Emergency radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify and characterize the most frequent users of emergency department (ED) imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll patients with at least one ED visit in 2016 across a four-hospital healthcare system were retrospectively identified and their ED imaging utilization characterized.
resultsOverall, 126,940 unique patients underwent 187,603 ED visits (mean 1.5 ± 1.7) and a total of 192,142 imaging examinations (mean 1.7 ± 2.7). Fifty-eight percent of patients were imaged (73,672) and underwent a mean 2.6 ± 2.7 exams. When ranked by ED visits, 1.6% (2007) of patients had ≥ 4 ED visits (mean 6.1 ± 5.4). These ED "clinical superusers" accounted for 7.7% (14,409) of total ED visits and underwent 6.8 ± 5.4 imaging examinations, while non-superusers underwent 1.5 ± 2.2 (p < 0.01). When ranked by ED imaging utilization, 12.3% (15,575) of patients underwent ≥ 4 ED imaging examinations and consumed 49.5% (95,053) of all imaging services. A subset of just 1.3% (1608) of ED patients underwent > 10 annual ED examinations (ED "imaging superusers") and accounted for 12.4% (23,787) of all ED imaging services. Only 0.4% (n = 472) of patients were both clinical and imaging superusers. Despite similar ED visits to clinical superusers (6.0 ± 5.6 vs. 6.1 ± 5.4, p = 0.92), imaging superusers underwent significantly more imaging (14.8 ± 4.8 vs. 6.8 ± 5.4 examinations, p < 0.01).
conclusionJust 12% of ED patients consume 50% of all ED imaging services, and 1.3% consume 12.4%. These ED imaging superusers represent a distinct group from clinical superusers. Prospective identification of this newly described subgroup might permit targeted interventions to control ED imaging volume, restrain costs, and minimize per-patient radiation exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30443737What 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.