ArticlePloS one2023
Imaging delays among medical inpatients in Toronto, Ontario: A cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timely access to computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in acute critical conditions: clinical and health system outcomes. A scoping review.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- MRI Waiting Time Disparities in Saudi Public Hospitals: A Six-Year Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of teleradiology on patient waiting time and service satisfaction in public hospitals, Northwest Ethiopia: a quasi-experimental study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of guided reporting: quality and reading time of automatically generated radiology report in breast magnetic resonance imaging using a dedicated software solution.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Advanced imaging use and delays among inpatients with psychiatric comorbidity.Brain and behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImaging procedures are commonly performed on hospitalized patients and waiting for these could increase length-of-stay. The study objective was to quantify delays for imaging procedures in General Internal Medicine and identify contributing patient, physician, and system factors.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of medical inpatients admitted to 5 hospitals in Toronto, Ontario (2010-2019), with at least one imaging procedure (CT, MRI, ultrasound, or peripherally-inserted central catheter [PICC] insertion). The primary outcome was time-to-test, and the secondary outcome was acute length-of-stay after test ordering.
resultsThe study cohort included 73,107 hospitalizations. Time-to-test was longest for MRI (median 22 hours) and shortest for CT (median 7 hours). The greatest contributors to time-to-test were system factors such as hospital site (up to 22 additional hours), location of test ordering (up to 10 additional hours), the timing of test ordering relative to admission (up to 13 additional hours), and ordering during weekends (up to 21 additional hours). Older patient age, having more comorbidities, and residence in a low-income neighborhood were also associated with testing delays. Each additional hour spent waiting for a test was associated with increased acute length-of-stay after test ordering, ranging from 0.4 additional hours for CT to 1.2 hours for MRI.
conclusionsThe greatest contributors to testing delays relate to when and where a test was ordered. Wait times affect length-of-stay and the quality of patient care. Hospitals can apply our novel approach to explore opportunities to decrease testing delays locally.
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.