ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Computed tomography referral guidelines adherence in Europe: insights from a seven-country audit.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Choosing wisely in neuroradiology: evaluating CT and MR utilization trends in Europe.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- The use of computed tomography during follow-up after ablation of cT1 renal cell carcinoma: evidence for overuse.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Sex differences in inappropriate imaging requests: insights from the Medical Imaging Decision And Support (MIDAS) study.European radiology · 2026Trial
- Cultural bias in large language models' ability to follow neuroradiology guidelines.European radiology · 2026Article
- Rethinking the evidence for intensive surveillance after renal tumor ablation.European radiology · 2026Article
- Justification of Imaging Referrals: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Referring Physicians' Knowledge, Practices, and Barriers.AJPM focus · 2026Article
- Adherence to Diagnostic Imaging Pathways for Patients Presenting to Emergency Departments With Undifferentiated Acute Abdominal Pain: Impact on Radiation Exposure and Multiple Imaging Testing.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Balancing patients' benefits and risks in computed tomography: a European Society of Radiology 'EuroSafe Imaging' viewpoint.European radiology · 2026Review
- Cancer Risk Associated With Radiological Examinations: 2025 Updates.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Can radiology requisition quality reflect clinical reasoning? Insights from a RI-RADS evaluation of emergency CT referrals.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Comparison of CT referral justification using clinical decision support and large language models in a large European cohort.European radiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring appropriate computed tomography (CT) utilization optimizes patient care while minimizing radiation exposure. Decision support tools show promise for standardizing appropriateness.
objectivesIn the current study, we aimed to assess CT appropriateness rates using the European Society of Radiology (ESR) iGuide criteria across seven European countries. Additional objectives were to identify factors associated with appropriateness variability and examine recommended alternative exams.
methodsAs part of the European Commission-funded EU-JUST-CT project, 6734 anonymized CT referrals were audited across 125 centers in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, and Slovenia. In each country, two blinded radiologists independently scored each exam's appropriateness using the ESR iGuide and noted any recommended alternatives based on presented indications. Arbitration was used in case auditors disagreed. Associations between appropriateness rate and institution type, patient's age and sex, inpatient/outpatient patient status, anatomical area, and referring physician's specialty were statistically examined within each country.
resultsThe average appropriateness rate was 75%, ranging from 58% in Greece to 86% in Denmark. Higher rates were associated with public hospitals, inpatient settings, and referrals from specialists. Variability in appropriateness existed by country and anatomical area, patient age, and gender. Common alternative exam recommendations included magnetic resonance imaging, X-ray, and ultrasound.
conclusionThis multi-country evaluation found that even when using a standardized imaging guideline, significant variations in CT appropriateness persist, ranging from 58% to 86% across the participating countries. The study provided valuable insights into real-world utilization patterns and identified opportunities to optimize practices and reduce clinical and demographic disparities in CT use. KEY POINTS: Question Largest multinational study (7 EU countries, 6734 CT referrals) assessed real-world CT appropriateness using ESR iGuide, enabling cross-system comparisons. Findings Significant variability in appropriateness rates across institution type, patient status, age, gender, exam area, and physician specialty, highlighted the opportunities to optimize practices based on local factors. Clinical relevance International collaboration on imaging guidelines and decision support can maximize CT benefits while optimizing radiation exposure; ongoing research is crucial for refining evidence-based guidelines globally.
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.