Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31792584›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness.

Madan M Rehani, Emily R Melick, Raza M Alvi, Ruhani Doda Khera, Salma Batool-Anwar, Tomas G Neilan, Michael Bettmann

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Patients undergoing multipleThe British journal of radiology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Madan M RehaniMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. madan.rehani@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3519-1516
Emily R MelickMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Raza M AlviMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Ruhani Doda KheraMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Salma Batool-AnwarBrigham Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Tomas G NeilanMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Michael BettmannWake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine percent of patients without malignancy and ≤ 40 years of age with high cumulative radiation doses through recurrent CT exams and assess imaging appropriateness.

methodsFrom the cohort of patients who received cumulative effective dose (CED) of ≥ 100 mSv over a 5-year period, a sub-set was identified with non-malignant disease. The top 50 clinical indications leading to multiple CTs were determined. Clinical decision support (CDS) system scores were analyzed using a widely adopted standard of 1-3 (red) as "not usually appropriate," 4-6 (yellow) "may or may not be appropriate," and 7-9 (green) "usually appropriate." Clinicians reviewed patient records to assess compliance with appropriate use criteria (AUC).

results9.6% of patients in our series were with non-malignant conditions and 1.4% with age ≤ 40 years. CDS scores (rounded) were 2% red, 38% yellow, 27% green, and 33% unscored CTs. Clinical society guidelines for CT exams, wherever available, were followed in 87.5 to 100% of cases. AUCs were not available for several clinical indications as also referral guidelines for serial CT imaging. More than half of CT exams were unrelated to follow-up of a primary chronic disease.

conclusionsWe are faced with a situation wherein patients in age ≤ 40 years require or are thought to require many CT exams over the course of a few years but the radiation risk creates concern. There is a fair number of conditions for which AUC are not available. Suggested solutions include development of CT scanners with lesser radiation dose and further development of appropriateness criteria. KEY POINTS: We are faced with a situation wherein patients in age group 0-40 years and with non-malignant diagnosis require or are thought to require many CT exams over the course of a few years. More than half of CT exams were unrelated to follow-up of a primary chronic disease. Imaging guidelines and appropriateness use criteria are not available for many conditions. Wherever available, they are for initial work-up and diagnosis and there is a lack of guidance on serial CT imaging.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalPractice Guidelines as TopicRadiation DosageAdultCohort StudiesFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleReferral and ConsultationTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung AdultPatient safetyRadiation protectionRadiologic technologyRadiologyReferral and consultation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.