Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36417017›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2022

Justification of CT practices across Europe: results of a survey of national competent authorities and radiology societies.

Shane J Foley, Ritva Bly, Adrian P Brady, Steve Ebdon-Jackson, Alexandra Karoussou-Schreiner, Monika Hierath, Jacob Sosna, ESR EU-JUST-CT Project consortium, Boris Brkljačić

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Patient radiation safety in the intensive care unit.The British journal of radiology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Justification: gain or game.Radiologia brasileira
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Shane J FoleyA209 Health Sciences Centre, Radiography and Diagnostic Imaging, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. shane.foley@ucd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9478-2802
Ritva BlySTUK - Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Vantaa, Finland.
Adrian P BradyMercy University Hospital Cork and University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Steve Ebdon-JacksonMedical Exposure Regulatory Infrastructure Team, CRCE, Public Health England, Chilton, Didcot, UK.
Alexandra Karoussou-SchreinerRadiation Protection Department, Health Directorate, Ministry of Health, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.
Monika HierathEuropean Society of Radiology, Vienna, Austria.
Jacob SosnaHadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
ESR EU-JUST-CT Project consortium
Boris BrkljačićSchool of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
European Society of Radiology · ATHadassah Medical Center · ILPublic Health England · GBRadiation and Nuclear Safety Authority · FIUniversity College Cork · IEUniversity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Zagreb · HR

Funding

European Commission ENER/21/NUCL/SI2.844392
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPublished literature on justification of computed tomography (CT) examinations in Europe is sparse but demonstrates consistent sub-optimal application. As part of the EU initiated CT justification project, this work set out to capture CT justification practices across Europe.

methodsAn electronic questionnaire consisting of mostly closed multiple-choice questions was distributed to national competent authorities and to presidents of European radiology societies in EU member states as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK (n = 31).

resultsFifty-one results were received from 30 European countries. Just 47% (n = 24) stated that advance justification of individual CT examinations is performed by a medical practitioner. Radiologists alone mostly (n = 27, 53%) perform daily justification of CT referrals although this is a shared responsibility in many countries. Imaging referral guidelines are widely available although just 13% (n = 6) consider them in daily use. Four countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Sweden, UK) reported having them embedded within clinical decision support systems. Justification of new practices with CT is mostly regulated (77%) although three countries (Belgium, Iceland and Portugal) reported not having any national system in place for generic justification. Health screening with CT was reported by seven countries as part of approved screening programmes and by eight countries outside. When performed, CT justification audits were reported to improve CT justification rates.

conclusionsCT justification practices vary across Europe with less than 50% using advance justification and a minority having clinical decision support systems in place. CT for health screening purposes is not currently widely used in Europe.

Indexed as

Computed tomographyJustificationRadiation protectionSurvey

Identifiers

PMID36417017
PMCPMC9684387
OpenAlexW4309701409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.