ArticleJournal of the Belgian Society of Radiology2022
Audit on Compliance to Guidelines in CT Scanning for Urolithiasis.
Article in Journal of the Belgian Society 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.
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: According to the ALARA principle, CT-imaging procedures should be implemented to optimize radiation doses. The purpose of this study is to determine whether a quality control process has an impact on compliance with procedures. Materials and methods: This retrospective study was conducted in three hospitals, focusing on the selection of the appropriate acquisition protocol and the reduction of acquisition height in abdominal computed tomography (CT) examinations performed to diagnose or rule out urolithiasis. A first audit was conducted to measure the compliance with the procedure. Next, a reminder of the CT-urolithiasis procedure was given to stakeholders. Three months later, a second audit was conducted to measure the impact of the repeat recall information on compliance, and to compare the outcome with an earlier audit conducted five years earlier. Results: We included 517 'urolithiasis CT examinations'. The compliance ranged from 41.67% to 64.8% for the first audit. After the reminder of the urolithiasis procedure, compliance ranged from 50% to 76.10%. This improvement was statistically significant for hospital A and B (p < 0.001 for hospital A, p = 0.013 for hospital B) but not for hospital C (p = 0.405). Despite prior demonstration that improved compliance persisted at one year from an initial audit, our actual data show that this compliance had decreased at year five, confirming the need to repeat compliance audits more frequently, or to monitor it continuously. Conclusion: Surveying compliance to procedures can improve compliance but only for a limited duration. Monitoring compliance more frequently or even continuously is recommended.
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.