Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32227142›Full record

Trial reportJAMA internal medicine2020

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Single-Component and Multicomponent Interventions for Reducing Radiation Doses in Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Philip Chu, Yifei Wang, Robert Chung, Naomi Lopez-Solano, Andrew J Einstein, Leif Solberg, Luisa F Cervantes, Thomas Yellen-Nelson, William Boswell and 14 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03000751 (CT Dose Optimization and Standardization Endeavor), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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.

NCT03000751 nacompletednot on this map

CT Dose Optimization and Standardization Endeavor (DOSE) Collaboratory

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2016 to 2020Enrolled864,080ConditionsIonizing Radiation Exposure, Quality ImprovementArmsSimple Audit Report, Multi-Component Intervention, In-Person Meeting
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Sample size calculations for indirect standardization.BMC medical research methodology · 2023
    Article
  13. Strategies for Dose Optimization: Views From Health Care Systems.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Audit on Compliance to Guidelines in CT Scanning for Urolithiasis.Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology · 2022
    Article
  17. Observational
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

24 authors at 19 institutions in 4 countries.

Rebecca Smith-BindmanDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco.
Philip ChuDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco.
Yifei WangDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco.
Robert ChungDepartment of Demography, University of California, Berkeley.
Naomi Lopez-SolanoDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco.
Andrew J EinsteinDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Leif SolbergHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Luisa F CervantesNicklaus Children's Hospital, Miami, Florida.
Thomas Yellen-NelsonDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego.
William BoswellDepartment of Radiology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Bradley N DelmanDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Phuong-Anh DuongDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Allen R GoodeDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Virginia.
Nima KasraieDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Ryan K LeeDepartment of Radiology, Einstein Healthcare Network, New York, New York.
Rebecca NeillDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Anokh PahwaDepartment of Radiology Sciences, Olive View UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Pavlina PikeHuntsville Hospital System, Huntsville, Alabama.
Jodi RoehmCenter for Diagnostic Imaging, St Louis Park, Minnesota.
Sebastian SchinderaDepartment of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital, Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland.
Jay StarkeySt Luke's International Hospital, Chuo, Tokyo, Japan.
Saravanabavaan SuntharalingamDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital, Essen, Germany.
Cécile R L P N JeukensDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Diana L MigliorettiDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis.
University of California, San Francisco · USEmory University · USCity Of Hope National Medical Center · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USEinstein Healthcare Network · USHealthPartners · USHuntsville Hospital · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USImaging Center · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USKantonsspital Aarau · CHMaastricht University · NLMiami Children's Hospital · USOlive View-UCLA Medical Center · USSt. Luke's International Hospital · JPThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of California, San Diego · USUniversity of Virginia Health System · US

Funding

CT DOSE CollaboratoryR01CA181191 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SMITH-BINDMAN, REBECCA · 2014 to 2019
$6.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA181191
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Computed tomography (CT) radiation doses vary across institutions and are often higher than needed. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of 2 interventions to reduce radiation doses in patients undergoing CT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 864 080 adults older than 18 years who underwent CT of the abdomen, chest, combined abdomen and chest, or head at 100 facilities in 6 countries from November 1, 2015, to September 21, 2017. Data analysis was performed from October 4, 2017, to December 14, 2018. Interventions: Imaging facilities received audit feedback alone comparing radiation-dose metrics with those of other facilities followed by the multicomponent intervention, including audit feedback with targeted suggestions, a 7-week quality improvement collaborative, and best-practice sharing. Facilities were randomly allocated to the time crossing from usual care to the intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the proportion of high-dose CT scans and mean effective dose at the facility level. Secondary outcomes were organ doses. Outcomes after interventions were compared with those before interventions using hierarchical generalized linear models adjusting for temporal trends and patient characteristics. Results: Across 100 facilities, 864 080 adults underwent 1 156 657 CT scans. The multicomponent intervention significantly reduced proportions of high-dose CT scans, measured using effective dose. Absolute changes in proportions of high-dose scans were 1.1% to 7.9%, with percentage reductions in the proportion of high-dose scans of 4% to 30% (abdomen: odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88; P < .001; chest: OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99; P = .03; combined abdomen and chest: OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.41-0.59; P < .001; and head: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.76; P < .001). Reductions in the proportions of high-dose scans were greater when measured using organ doses. The absolute reduction in the proportion of high-dose scans was 6.0% to 17.2%, reflecting 23% to 58% reductions in the proportions of high-dose scans across anatomical areas. Mean effective doses were significantly reduced after multicomponent intervention for abdomen (6% reduction, P < .001), chest (4%, P < .001), and chest and abdomen (14%, P < .001) CT scans. Larger reductions in mean organ doses were 8% to 43% across anatomical areas. Audit feedback alone reduced the proportions of high-dose scans and mean dose, but reductions in observed dose were smaller. Radiologist's satisfaction with CT image quality was unchanged and high during all periods. Conclusions and Relevance: For imaging facilities, detailed feedback on CT radiation dose combined with actionable suggestions and quality improvement education significantly reduced doses, particularly organ doses. Effects of audit feedback alone were modest. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03000751.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageAbdomenAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHeadHumansMaleMiddle AgedThoraxTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32227142
PMCPMC7105953
OpenAlexW3013480718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.