ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2024
Actionability of Recommendations for Additional Imaging in Head and Neck Radiology.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two-Year Lung Cancer Incidence Among Patients Who Receive a Radiologist Recommendation for Chest CT in Neck CT and MRI Reports.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Observational
- Incidental Breast Findings on Chest CT: Rates of Report and Follow-Up.Radiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Radiologist Recommendations for Temporal Bone CT to Assess Superior Semicircular Canal Dehiscence on Temporal Bone MRI.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Observational
- Patient Photograph Association With Radiologist Recommendations for Additional Imaging.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Observational
- Use of ChatGPT Large Language Models to Extract Details of Recommendations for Additional Imaging From Free-Text Impressions of Radiology Reports.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2025Article
- A Public Health Perspective on Radiologists' Interpretation Volumes.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Recommendations for Additional Imaging on Head and Neck Imaging Examinations: Interradiologist Variation and Associated Factors.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aims of this study were to measure the actionability of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) in head and neck CT and MRI, for which there is a near complete absence of best practices or guidelines; to identify the most common recommendations; and to assess radiologist factors associated with actionability.
methodsAll head and neck CT and MRI radiology reports across a multi-institution, multipractice health care system from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022, were retrospectively reviewed. The actionability of RAIs was scored using a validated taxonomy. The most common RAIs were identified. Actionability association with radiologist factors (gender, years out of training, fellowship training, practice type) and with trainees was measured using a mixed-effects model.
resultsTwo hundred nine radiologists generated 60,543 reports, of which 7.2% (n = 4,382) contained RAIs. Only 3.9% of RAIs (170 of 4,382) were actionable. More than 60% of RAIs were for eight examinations: thyroid ultrasound (14.1%), neck CT (12.6%), brain MRI (6.9%), chest CT (6.5%), neck CT angiography (5.5%), temporal bone CT (5.3%), temporal bone MRI (5.2%), and pituitary MRI (4.6%). Radiologists >23 years out of training (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-1.02; P = .05) and community radiologists (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.31; P = .17) had substantially lower estimated odds of making actionable RAIs than radiologists <7 years out of training and academic radiologists, respectively.
conclusionsThe studied radiologists rarely made actionable RAIs, which makes it difficult to identify and track clinically necessary RAIs to timely performance. Multifaceted quality improvement initiatives including peer comparisons, clinical decision support at the time of reporting, and the development of evidence-based best practices, may help improve tracking and timely performance of clinically necessary RAIs.
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.