ArticleIrish journal of medical science2024
Evidence-based radiology 5 years on-a single-centre review of image referral appropriateness.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe iRefer guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on imaging and are designed to facilitate appropriate referrals and limit unnecessary radiation exposure. In 2017, a review at this institution assessed the appropriateness of imaging referrals. This study provides an update 5 years later on the referral appropriateness and aims to assess what impact the previous review has had on referral appropriateness.
methodsA retrospective study of 945 referrals across GPs, ED, and inpatients was audited against the iRefer guidelines with costs and cumulative dose estimates calculated for inappropriate referrals considering salaries of those involved, the average time spent performing and reporting radiographs, and the median effective dose values.
resultsResults show a decrease in the volume of requests overall with the relative proportion of inappropriate requests rising significantly. Inappropriate requests for abdominal X-rays from GPs decreased from 72 to 37.5%, whereas inappropriate ED referrals increased from 38 to 46% and inappropriate inpatient requests remained static at 30%. The proportion of inappropriate GP requests for spinal radiographs significantly increased for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine radiographs, respectively (18 to 66%; 47 to 72%; 53 to 80%; p-value < 0.001). Inappropriate radiographs represent an increased financial and dose-based burden.
conclusionThe volume of radiograph requests reduced after over a 5-year interval; however, the relative proportion of inappropriate requests rose significantly. The iRefer guidelines provide a useful resource to ensure that imaging is used appropriately, effectively, and safely; however, more work is needed to ensure that requests are adhering to these guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39158672What 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.