ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022
IMPACT (Information Medically Pertinent in Acute Computed Tomography) requests: Delphi study to develop criteria standards for adequate clinical information in computed tomography requests in the Australian emergency department.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- IMPACT Requests: Evaluating the Effectiveness of IMPACT Education for Emergency Department Referrers to Improve the Quality of CT Requests.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Decoding collaboration obstacles: a survey on reporting preferences between neuroradiologists and clinical specialists.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Can radiology requisition quality reflect clinical reasoning? Insights from a RI-RADS evaluation of emergency CT referrals.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Assessing, Advising, and Advancing the Filling Practices of the Radiology Request Form in Africa: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInadequate clinical information in medical imaging requests negatively affects the clinical relevance of imaging performed and the quality of resultant radiology reports. Currently, there are no published Australian guidelines on what constitutes adequate clinical information in computed tomography (CT) requests. This study aimed to determine specific items of clinical information radiologists require in CT requests for acute chest, abdomen and blunt trauma examinations, to support optimal reporting.
methodsA panel of 24 CT-reporting consultant radiologists participated in this e-Delphi consensus study. Panellists undertook multiple online survey rounds of open-ended, dichotomous and Likert scale questions, receiving feedback following each. Round 1 responses formulated lists for each CT examination. Round 2 set a threshold of 80% agreement after dichotomous scoring. Round 3 accepted items which averaged 4 or more on a 5-point Likert scale. Round 4 required panellists to rank items within the aggregated, accepted lists, based on panellists' perceived level of usefulness.
resultsThe large numbers of round 1 items (chest: 101, abdomen: 76, blunt trauma: 80) were rationalised and grouped into categories to facilitate efficiency during subsequent rounds. Twenty-three chest, 24 abdomen and 17 blunt trauma items met the 80% agreement threshold in round 2. Items below threshold were included in round 3; numbering 44, 19 and 23 for chest, abdomen and blunt trauma, respectively. Through the e-Delphi process, we formulated clinical information criteria standards for three CT types.
conclusionsThe developed standards will guide Australian referrers in providing adequate clinical information in CT requests, to support optimal reporting, diagnosis and treatment.
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.