ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2022
The justification of non-obstetric ultrasound referrals: A safe and effective practice.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Inappropriate CT examinations: how much, who and where? Insights from a clinical decision support system (CDSS) analysis.European radiology · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2015 the British Medical Ultrasound Society released a referral justification document for rejection of inappropriate ultrasound referrals to help manage increasing demand and ensure correct utilisation of diagnostic imaging tests. In our trust, referrals that were not aligned with the guidance were cancelled and returned to general practitioners, providing reasons for cancellation and advising other diagnostic tests if appropriate.
resultsThere was strong agreement amongst sonographers regarding cancellations. After exclusions, 389 cases were included for review. The majority (90.5%) required no onward imaging and were therefore deemed cancelled appropriately. There were 37 patients found with pathology on subsequent imaging, two of which were found to have cancer and the remainder with benign pathology.
conclusionsOverall, we found the cancellation process to be safe and the justification document easy to utilise in practice. This process has ensured a minimal waiting time for ultrasound imaging is maintained and that demand can be managed to meet the available capacity.
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.