ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessing, Advising, and Advancing the Filling Practices of the Radiology Request Form in Africa: A Systematic Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the increased use of diagnostic imaging in Africa, the completion of the Radiology Request Form (RRF) remains suboptimal, often relying on paper-based communication. To examine the practices surrounding RRF completion in the African continent, on 25 March 2024, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles describing the practice in African settings. Non-African studies, studies involving non-human subjects, and articles examining the practice of the RRF for interventional usage were excluded. Our search involves PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online. The included studies were 3004, of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. These studies span eight countries and highlighted several shortcomings, including the usage of informal forms, unconventional abbreviations, illegibility, inaccuracy, and the lack of important fields from institutional forms, commonly the last menstrual period and the referrer's contact details. We also found widespread non-compliance in all RRF fields; half of the studies did not have an adequately filled form. Incomplete RRFs lead to delayed imaging, increased workloads for radiographers and radiologists, and potential misdiagnoses due to insufficient information. It will also impede the application of radiation protection principles. To address these challenges, empowering radiographers and radiologists and encouraging best practices is essential. Regular audits and educational initiatives aimed at clinicians are recommended. While transitioning to a paperless communication system might help, implementing nationwide quality improvement projects to standardise radiology request forms is currently more feasible.
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.