Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37530862›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2023

CT and MRI imaging in Sweden: retrospective appropriateness analysis of large referral samples.

Henriettæ Ståhlbrandt, Ida Björnfot, Torsten Cederlund, Anja Almén

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Henriettæ StåhlbrandtDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the Highlands, 575 81, Eksjö, Sweden.
Ida BjörnfotDepartment of Radiology, Länssjukhuset Ryhov, 551 85, Jönköping, Sweden.
Torsten CederlundDepartment for Authorisation of Radiation Applications, Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, 171 16, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anja AlménDepartment for Radiation Protection and Environmental Assessment, Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, 171 16, Stockholm, Sweden. anja.almen@med.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0792-1294
Swedish Radiation Safety Authority · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe numbers of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations per capita continue to increase in Sweden and in other parts of Europe. The appropriateness of CT and MRI examinations was audited using established European appropriateness criteria. Alternative modalities were also explored. The results were compared with those of a previous study performed in Sweden.

methodsA semi-automatic retrospective evaluation of referrals from examinations performed in four healthcare regions using the European appropriateness criteria in ESR iGuide was undertaken. The clinical indications from a total of 13,075 referrals were assessed against these criteria. The ESR iGuide was used to identify alternative modalities resulting in a higher degree of appropriateness. A qualitative comparison with re-evaluated results from the previous study was made.

resultsThe appropriateness was higher for MRI examinations than for CT examinations with procedures classed as usually appropriate for 76% and 63% of the examinations, respectively. The degree of appropriateness for CT was higher for referrals from hospitals compared to those from primary care centres. The opposite was found for MRI examinations. The alternative modalities that would result in higher appropriateness included all main imaging modalities. The result for CT did not show improvement compared with the former study.

conclusionsA high proportion of both CT and MRI examinations were inappropriate. The study indicates that 37% of CT examinations and 24% of MRI examinations were inappropriate and that the appropriateness for CT has not improved in the last 15 years. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A high proportion of CT and MRI examinations in this retrospective study using evidence-based referral guidelines were inappropriate. KEY POINTS: ∙ A high proportion of CT and MRI examinations were inappropriate. ∙ The CT referrals from general practitioners were less appropriate that those from hospital specialists. ∙ The MRI referrals from hospital specialists were less appropriate that those from general practitioners. ∙ Adherence to radiological appropriateness guidelines may improve the appropriateness of conducted examinations.

Indexed as

AppropriatenessComputed tomographyJustificationMagnetic resonance imagingReferral

Identifiers

PMID37530862
PMCPMC10397157
OpenAlexW4385476811

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.