ArticleInsights into imaging2024
Impact of point-of-care clinical decision support on referrer behavior, imaging volume, patient radiation dose exposure, and sustainability.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance recommendations toward environmentally sustainable cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Guideline
- Implementation of Electronic Clinical Decision Support for Radiology Referrals: The Role of Governance, Clinician Engagement and Education.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Article
- Pediatric radiology informatics within a larger academic practice.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWhen referring patients to radiology, it is important that the most appropriate test is chosen to avoid inappropriate imaging that may lead to delayed diagnosis, unnecessary radiation dose, worse patient outcome, and poor patient experience. The current radiology appropriateness guidance standard at our institution is via access to a standalone web-based clinical decision support tool (CDST). A point-of-care (POC) CDST that incorporates guidance directly into the physician workflow was implemented within a subset of head and neck cancer specialist referrers. The purpose of this audit was to evaluate the imaging pathway, pre- and post-implementation to assess changes in referral behavior.
methodsCT and MRI neck data were collected retrospectively to examine the relationship between imaging referrals pre- and post-POC CDST implementation. Effective radiation dose and estimated carbon emissions were also compared.
resultsThere was an overall reduction in absolute advanced imaging volume by 8.2%, and a reduction in duplicate CT and MRI imaging by 61%, p < 0.0001. There was also a shift in ordering behavior in favor of MRI (OR [95% CI] = 1.50 [1.02-2.22], p = 0.049). These changes resulted in an effective radiation dose reduction of 0.27 mSv per patient, or 13 equivalent chest x-rays saved per patient, p < 0.0001. Additionally, the reduction in unnecessary duplicate imaging led to a 13.5% reduction in carbon emissions, p = 0.0002.
conclusionsImplementation of the POC CDST resulted in a significant impact on advanced imaging volume, saved effective dose, and reduction in carbon emissions. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The implementation of a point-of-care clinical decision support tool may reduce multimodality ordering and advanced imaging volume, manifesting in reduced effective dose per patient and reduced estimated carbon emissions. Widespread utilization of the point-of-care clinical decision support tool has the potential to reduce imaging wait times. KEY POINTS: • Implementation of the point-of-care clinical decision support tool reduced the number of patients who simultaneously had a CT and MRI ordered for the same clinical indication compared to a standalone web-based clinical decision support tool. • The point-of-care clinical decision support tool reduced the absolute number of CT/MRI scans requested compared to the standalone web-based clinical decision support tool. • Utilization of the point-of-care clinical decision support tool led to a significant reduction in the effective dose per patient compared to the standalone web-based clinical decision support tool.
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.