ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018
Integrity of clinical information in computerized order requisitions for diagnostic imaging.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of clinical information on radiology reporting: A systematic review.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Pooled it
- Personalized CT Protocol Recommendation via Large Language Model: Enabling Fully Automated CT Scanning Workflows.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Better communication between rheumatologists and radiologists is key to improving MRI requesting and reporting data in axial spondyloarthritis: audit data from a single specialist centre.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
- Collaborating with non-radiological clinical colleagues.Pediatric radiology · 2025Review
- Review
- Degree of Uncertainty in Reporting Imaging Findings for Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Secondary Analysis from a Pilot Randomized Diagnostic Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Impact of computerised provider order entry on the quality and quantity of clinical information included with investigation requests: an interrupted time series analysis.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Accuracy between clinical and radiological diagnoses compared to surgical orbital biopsies.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Automated Protocoling for MRI Exams-Challenges and Solutions.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Review
- The role of artificial intelligence in paediatric cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2022Review
- Can emergency department provider notes help to achieve more dynamic clinical decision support?Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Assess information integrity (concordance and completeness of documented exam indications from the electronic health record [EHR] imaging order requisition, compared to EHR provider notes), and assess potential impact of indication inaccuracies on exam planning and interpretation. Methods: This retrospective study, approved by the Institutional Review Board, was conducted at a tertiary academic medical center. There were 139 MRI lumbar spine (LS-MRI) and 176 CT abdomen/pelvis orders performed 4/1/2016-5/31/2016 randomly selected and reviewed by 4 radiologists for concordance and completeness of relevant exam indications in order requisitions compared to provider notes, and potential impact of indication inaccuracies on exam planning and interpretation. Forty each LS-MRI and CT abdomen/pelvis were re-reviewed to assess kappa agreement. Results: Requisition indications were more likely to be incomplete (256/315, 81%) than discordant (133/315, 42%) compared to provider notes (p < 0.0001). Potential impact of discrepancy between clinical information in requisitions and provider notes was higher for radiologist's interpretation than for exam planning (135/315, 43%, vs 25/315, 8%, p < 0.0001). Agreement among radiologists for concordance, completeness, and potential impact was moderate to strong (Kappa 0.66-0.89). Indications in EHR order requisitions are frequently incomplete or discordant compared to physician notes, potentially impacting imaging exam planning, interpretation and accurate diagnosis. Such inaccuracies could also diminish the relevance of clinical decision support alerts if based on information in order requisitions. Conclusions: Improved availability of relevant documented clinical information within EHR imaging requisition is necessary for optimal exam planning and interpretation.
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.