ArticleInsights into imaging2023
Measuring appropriateness of diagnostic imaging: a scoping review.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact and effect of imaging referral guidelines on patients and radiology services: a systematic review.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Imaging appropriateness in pediatric emergency department using the American College of Radiology criteria: an observational study.Emergency radiology · 2026Observational
- Article
- Lower extremity MRI: are their requests always appropriate in France?European radiology · 2025Observational
- Overuse of medical imaging and effects of payer-provider integration: quasi-experimental evidence from Finland.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Machine learning and deep learning for classifying the justification of brain CT referrals.European radiology · 2024Article
- Precision Metrics: A Narrative Review on Unlocking the Power of KPIs in Radiology for Enhanced Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Breaking barriers: enhancing cancer detection in younger patients by overcoming diagnostic bias in primary care.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In radiology, the justification of diagnostic imaging is a key performance indicator. To date, specific recommendations on the measurement of appropriateness in diagnostic imaging are missing. To map the study literature concerning the definition, measures, methods and data used for analyses of appropriateness in research of diagnostic imaging. We conducted a scoping review in Medline, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two independent reviewers undertook screening and data extraction. After screening 6021 records, we included 50 studies. National guidelines (n = 22/50) or American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (n = 23/50) were used to define and rate appropriateness. 22/50 studies did not provide methodological details about the appropriateness assessment. The included studies varied concerning modality, amount of reviewed examinations (88-13,941) and body regions. Computed tomography (27 studies, 27,168 examinations) was the most frequently analyzed modality, followed by magnetic resonance imaging (17 studies, 6559 examinations) and radiography (10 studies, 7095 examinations). Heterogeneous appropriateness rates throughout single studies (0-100%), modalities, and body regions (17-95%) were found. Research on pediatric and outpatient imaging was sparse. Multicentric, methodologically robust and indication-oriented studies would strengthen appropriateness research in diagnostic imaging and help to develop reliable key performance indicators.
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.