ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Clinical decision support system recommendations: how often do radiologists and clinicians accept them?
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decreasing inappropriate MRCP with contrast exams: impact of an EMR-Embedded clinical care pathway.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Comparison of CT referral justification using clinical decision support and large language models in a large European cohort.European radiology · 2025Article
- Challenges and insights from implementing clinical decision support systems for radiologic imaging: experience from the MIDAS trial.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Computed tomography referral guidelines adherence in Europe: insights from a seven-country audit.European radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy and Impact of the ESR-iGuide Decision Support Tool in Optimizing CT Imaging Referral Appropriateness.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Insights from a web-based questionnaire: examining diagnostic procedures prior to magnetic resonance imaging.Israel journal of health policy research · 2024Article
- Exploring pre-MRI imaging tests: patient survey reveals potential implications for healthcare efficiency in Israel.Israel journal of health policy research · 2024Article
- A content-aware chatbot based on GPT 4 provides trustworthy recommendations for Cone-Beam CT guidelines in dental imaging.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2024Article
- Inappropriate CT examinations: how much, who and where? Insights from a clinical decision support system (CDSS) analysis.European radiology · 2023Article
- Does clinical decision support system promote expert consensus for appropriate imaging referrals? Chest-abdominal-pelvis CT as a case study.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Advancing acceptance: assessing acceptance of the ESR iGuide clinical decision support system for improved computed tomography test justification.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the acceptance and reliability of clinical decision support system (CDSS) imaging referral scores (ESR iGuide).
methodsA pilot study was conducted in a tertiary hospital. Four different experts were invited to rate 40 simulated clinical cases on a 5-level scale, for the level of agreement with the ESR iGuide's recommended procedures. In cases of disagreement, physicians were asked to indicate the reason. Descriptive measures were calculated for the level of agreement. We also explored the degree of agreement between four different specialists, and examined the cases in which clinicians disagreed with ESR iGuide best practice recommendations.
resultsThe mean rating of the four experts for the 40 clinical simulated cases was 4.17 ± 0.65, median 4.25 (on a scale of 1-5). All four raters totally agreed with the system recommendation in 75% of cases. No significant relationship was found between the degree of agreement and the number of indications and the patient's age or gender. In an optimistic scenario, using a binary agree/disagree variable, the Overall Percentage Agreement for the rating of the 40 simulated cases between the four experts was 77.28%. There were a total of 20 disagreements out of 160 cases with the ESR iGuide, of which 7 were among the two radiologists.
conclusionsCDSS can be an effective tool for guiding the selection of appropriate imaging examinations, thus cutting costs due to unnecessary imaging scans. Since this is a pilot study, further research on a larger scale, preferably at national level, is required. KEY POINTS: • The average of the mean rating of the four experts was 4.17 ± 0.65, median 4.25, on a scale of 1-5 where 5 represents total agreement with the CDSS tool. • In an optimistic scenario, using a binary agree/disagree variable, the Overall Percentage Agreement between the four experts was 77.28%. • Radiologists had fewer disagreements with the recommendations of the CDSS tool than other physicians, indicating a better fit of the support system to radiology experts' perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35024948What 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.