Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32717183›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2020

Early-Stage Radiology Volume Effects and Considerations with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: Adaptations, Risks, and Lessons Learned.

Alexander M Norbash, Arl Van Moore, Michael P Recht, James A Brink, Christopher P Hess, Jay J Won, Sonia Jain, Xiaoying Sun, Manuel Brown, Dieter Enzmann

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Impacts of a Public Health Emergency on Cancer Testing Rates, Follow-up, and Cancer Diagnosis: An Evaluation of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic imaging services in Australia.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Alexander M NorbashChair, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, California. Electronic address: anorbash@ucsd.edu.
Arl Van MooreChair, Chief Executive Officer, Strategic Radiology, LLC, Palmetto, Florida.
Michael P RechtChair, Department of Radiology, New York University, Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
James A BrinkChair, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Christopher P HessChair, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Jay J WonUniversity of California, Los Angeles, California.
Sonia JainUniversity of California, San Diego, California.
Xiaoying SunUniversity of California, San Diego, California.
Manuel BrownChair, Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Dieter EnzmannChair, Department of Radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in significant loss of radiologic volume as a result of shelter-at-home mandates and delay of non-time-sensitive imaging studies to preserve capacity for the pandemic. We analyze the volume-related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on six academic medical systems (AMSs), three in high COVID-19 surge (high-surge) and three in low COVID-19 surge (low-surge) regions, and a large national private practice coalition. We sought to assess adaptations, risks of actions, and lessons learned.

methodsPercent change of 2020 volume per week was compared with the corresponding 2019 volume calculated for each of the 14 imaging modalities and overall total, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient studies in high-surge AMSs and low-surge AMSs and the practice coalition.

resultsSteep examination volume drops occurred during week 11, with slow recovery starting week 17. The lowest total AMS volume drop was 40% compared with the same period the previous year, and the largest was 70%. The greatest decreases were seen with screening mammography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and the smallest decreases were seen with PET/CT, x-ray, and interventional radiology. Inpatient volume was least impacted compared with outpatient or emergency imaging.

conclusionLarge percentage drops in volume were seen from weeks 11 through 17, were seen with screening studies, and were larger for the high-surge AMSs than for the low-surge AMSs. The lowest drops in volume were seen with modalities in which delays in imaging had greater perceived adverse consequences.

Indexed as

Coronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Diagnostic ImagingFemaleForecastingHumansIncidenceInfection ControlLearningMalePandemicsPneumonia, ViralPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiologyRisk AssessmentUnited StatesAdaptationsCOVID-19pandemicrecoveryvolume

Identifiers

PMID32717183
PMCPMC7346772

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.