ArticlePolish journal of radiology2022
Analysis of the appropriateness of orthopaedic computed tomography scans as exemplified by lower extremity bones and joints.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- An economic impact of incorrect referrals for MRI and CT scans: A retrospective analysis.Health science reports · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study is to analyse the appropriateness of lower extremity coputed tomography (CT) scans as performed in a large orthopaedic hospital. Material and methods: A total of 1410 CT scans acquired in the years 2014-2018 were analysed for compliance with the "Guidelines for Physicians Issuing Diagnostic Imaging Referrals" (iRefer). These guidelines were published by the Royal Radiologist Society and recommended for use by the Polish Medical Society of Radiology, the National Consultant for Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, and the Minister of Health. In addition, the study involved the analysis of information provided on CT referrals by referring clinicians. Results: Nearly 21% of CT referrals were found to be unsubstantiated based on the diagnosis made by the referring physician, the body region of interest, and the clinical department. Most referrals identified as non-compliant with the guidelines were related to cancers followed by inflammatory conditions. The lowest number of unjustified exams was reported for endoprostheses and injury-related cases. Conclusions: The study revealed a significant degree of non-compliance with the diagnostic algorithm as defined in the iRefer guidelines, particularly in cases of cancers and inflammatory conditions. Consequently, the patient's exposure to ionizing radiation is increased. Incorrect decisions regarding the appropriate diagnostic imaging technique are founded on the lack of appropriate cooperation between the clinician and the radiologist, insufficiency or lack of information provided on the referral, as well as the defensive attitude of referring physicians. It is therefore necessary to change appropriate in-hospital management and cooperation models.
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.