Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36066518›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2022

Effect of an Individualized Audit and Feedback Intervention on Rates of Musculoskeletal Diagnostic Imaging Requests by Australian General Practitioners: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Denise A O'Connor, Paul Glasziou, Christopher G Maher, Kirsten J McCaffery, Dina Schram, Brigit Maguire, Robert Ma, Laurent Billot, Alexandra Gorelik, Adrian C Traeger and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Dissemination and Implementation-A Primer for Accelerating "Time to Translation" in Radiation Oncology.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Shoulder pain: to image or not to image?Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. How Do Australians Manage Diagnostic Testing Risks? Focus Groups Linked to a Model of Behaviour Change.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Denise A O'ConnorDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paul GlasziouInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia.
Christopher G MaherInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District and The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Kirsten J McCafferySydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Dina SchramAustralian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Brigit MaguireAustralian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Robert MaAustralian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Laurent BillotThe George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Newtown, New South Wales, Australia.
Alexandra GorelikDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Adrian C TraegerInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District and The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Loai AlbarqouniInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia.
Juliet CheckettsAustralian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Parima VyasAustralian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Brett ClarkAustralian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Rachelle BuchbinderDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Department of Health · AUBond University · AUInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health · AUMonash University · AUACT GovernmentAustralian Government · AUCabrini Hospital · AUUniversity of Sydney · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Audit and feedback can improve professional practice, but few trials have evaluated its effectiveness in reducing potential overuse of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging in general practice. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and feedback for reducing musculoskeletal imaging by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This factorial cluster-randomized clinical trial included 2271 general practices with at least 1 GP who was in the top 20% of referrers for 11 imaging tests (of the lumbosacral or cervical spine, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle/hind foot) and for at least 4 individual tests between January and December 2018. Only high-requesting GPs within participating practices were included. The trial was conducted between November 2019 and May 2021, with final follow-up on May 8, 2021. Interventions: Eligible practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 different individualized written audit and feedback interventions (n = 3055 GPs) that varied factorially by (1) frequency of feedback (once vs twice) and (2) visual display (standard vs enhanced display highlighting highly requested tests) or to a control condition of no intervention (n = 764 GPs). Participants were not masked. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the overall rate of requests for the 11 targeted imaging tests per 1000 patient consultations over 12 months, assessed using routinely collected administrative data. Primary analyses included all randomized GPs who had at least 1 patient consultation during the study period and were performed by statisticians masked to group allocation. Results: A total of 3819 high-requesting GPs from 2271 practices were randomized, and 3660 GPs (95.8%; n = 727 control, n = 2933 intervention) were included in the primary analysis. Audit and feedback led to a statistically significant reduction in the overall rate of imaging requests per 1000 consultations compared with control over 12 months (adjusted mean, 27.7 [95% CI, 27.5-28.0] vs 30.4 [95% CI, 29.8-30.9], respectively; adjusted mean difference, -2.66 [95% CI, -3.24 to -2.07]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Australian general practitioners known to frequently request musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging, an individualized audit and feedback intervention, compared with no intervention, significantly decreased the rate of targeted musculoskeletal imaging tests ordered over 12 months. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12619001503112.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingGeneral PracticeMedical AuditMedical OveruseMusculoskeletal DiseasesAustraliaFeedbackGeneral PractitionersHumansMusculoskeletal SystemProfessional PracticeReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID36066518
PMCPMC9449798
OpenAlexW4294771197

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.