Observational studyLa Radiologia medica2021
Radiological outpatient' visits to avoid inappropriate cardiac CT examinations: an 8-year experience report.
Observational study in La Radiologia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The current landscape of imaging recommendations in cardiovascular clinical guidelines: toward an imaging-guided precision medicine.La Radiologia medica · 2020Pooled it
- Justification of CT practices across Europe: results of a survey of national competent authorities and radiology societies.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies: CT and MR from Basics to Advanced Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging: state of the art and applications in whole-body imaging.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Stress Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Long-Standing Non-Infarcted Chronic Coronary Syndrome with Preserved Systolic Function.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of the cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) prescriptions according to the "2010-Appropriate-Use-Criteria-for-Cardiac-Computed-Tomography-Angiography" (AUCCTA) and "Clinical-indication-for-CCTA" (CICCTA) among different specialities (Cardiologist [CA], General Practitioner [GP], Other Specialists [OS]) and prescribers' age. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a single-centre, single-arm, cohort study. We prospectively enrolled 815 patients (October 2012-May 2019) who underwent a radiological outpatient visit, before CCTA examination. Prescriptions to the examination were categorized as follows: Appropriate (A), Uncertain (U) and Inappropriate (Ina), according to AUCCTA and I, II, III and Inv for CICCTA. This categorization was stratified according to CA, GP and OS and prescribers' age. CCTA was performed in patients whom indications belong to A/U categories.
resultsEight hundred and fifteen CCTA prescriptions were analysed. An yearly increase in prescriptions was found in the eight-year observational period (2012/2019 projection: 72 vs 223). Considering AUCCTA, indication A was 540/815 (66.3%), indication U was 113/815 (13.9%) and Ina accounted for 162/815 (19.9%; 128/162 [79.0%] indications with stress test listed as criterium of inappropriateness). Only U indications decreased over years (p = 0.003). Regarding CICCTA, 501/815 (61.5%) patients were categorized as I, 144/815 (17.7%) as II, 102/815 (12.5%) as III, 67/815 (8.2%) were INV and 1/815 (0.1%) were non-classified. Clinical referrals were CA in 495/786 (63.0%), GPs in 57/786 (7.3%) GP and OS in 234/786 (29.8%) [p < 0.01]. No statistically significant differences were observed in the appropriateness among different specialty physicians. Younger doctors have a lower chance to not meet A indication (OR 0.98 [CI 95% 0.96-0.99]; p = 0.003).
conclusionOur study highlights the importance of a pre-radiological visit prior to CCTA, which prevented execution of 19.9% of inappropriate examinations. Age of prescribers had an impact on appropriateness, with younger doctors having a lower chance to not meet A indication.
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.