ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2024
Norwegian general practitioners' and radiologists' perspectives on the referral, justification, and unnecessary imaging-a survey.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variations in general practitioners' referrals to low-value MRI examinations in Norway: A nationwide register-based study.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Justification of Imaging Referrals: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Referring Physicians' Knowledge, Practices, and Barriers.AJPM focus · 2026Article
- Understanding Clinical Decision-Making in Medical Imaging Referrals: A Cross-Sectional Study of Public Health Practices in South Australia.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Assessing context and readiness of emergency medicine physicians to promote evidence-based imaging referral guidelines: a mixed-methods study.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to survey general practitioners' (GPs) and radiologists' perspectives on referrals, imaging justification, and unnecessary imaging in Norway. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe survey covered access to imaging, responsibilities, attitudes toward justification assessment, referral process, and demographics using multiple choice questions, statements to report agreement with using the Likert scale and one open question.
resultsForty radiologists and 58 GPs attending national conferences completed a web-based survey, with a 20/15% response rate, respectively. Both radiologists (97%) and GPs (100%) considered avoiding unnecessary examinations essential to their role in the healthcare service. Still, 91% of GPs admitted that they referred to imaging they thought was not helpful, while about 60% of the radiologists agreed that unnecessary imaging was conducted in their workplace. GPs reported pressure from patients and patients having private insurance as the most common reasons for doing unnecessary examinations. In contrast, radiologists reported a lack of clinical information and the inability to discuss patient cases with the GPs as the most common reasons.
conclusionThis study adds to our understanding of radiologists' and GPs' perspectives on unnecessary imaging and referrals. Better guidelines and, even more importantly, better communication between the referrer and the radiologist are needed. Addressing these issues can reduce unnecessary imaging and improve the quality and safety of care.
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.