Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39400643›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2024

Emergency imaging protocols for pregnant patients: a multi-institutional and multi- specialty comparison of physician education.

Liesl Eibschutz, Max Yang Lu, Payam Jannatdoust, Angela C Judd, Claire A Justin, Brandon K K Fields, Natalie L Demirjian, Madan Rehani, Sravanthi Reddy, Ali Gholamrezanezhad

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Liesl Eibschutz *Department of Internal Medicine, University of Virginia Hospital, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Max Yang Lu *Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Payam JannatdoustTehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Angela C JuddDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai/South Nassau, New York, NY, USA.
Claire A JustinDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Brandon K K FieldsDepartment of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Natalie L DemirjianCollege of Medicine - Tucson, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Madan RehaniDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Sravanthi ReddyDivision of Emergency Radiology, Los Angeles General Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Ali GholamrezanezhadDivision of Emergency Radiology, Los Angeles General Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. agholamrezanezhad@dhs.lacounty.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-4246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrevious studies have demonstrated that radiologists and other providers perceive the teratogenic risks of radiologic imaging to be higher than they actually are. Thus, pregnant patients were less likely to receive ionizing radiation procedures. While it is imperative to minimize fetal radiation exposure, clinicians must remember that diagnostic studies should not be avoided due to fear of radiation, particularly if the imaging study can significantly impact patient care. Although guidelines do exist regarding how best to image pregnant patients, many providers are unaware of these guidelines and thus lack confidence when making imaging decisions for pregnant patients. This study aimed to gather information about current education, confidence in, and knowledge about emergency imaging of pregnant women among radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers.

methodsWe created and distributed an anonymous survey to radiology, emergency medicine, and OB/GYN providers to evaluate their knowledge and confidence in imaging pregnant patients in the emergent setting. This study included a questionnaire with the intent of knowing the correct answers among physicians primarily across the United States (along with some international participation). We conducted subgroup analyses, comparing variables by specialty, radiology subspecialty, and training levels. Based on the survey results, we subsequently developed educational training videos.

results108 radiologists, of which 32 self-identified as emergency radiologists, ten emergency medicine providers and six OB/GYN clinicians completed the survey. The overall correct response rate was 68.5%, though performance across questions was highly variable. Within our 18-question survey, four questions had a correct response rate under 50%, while five questions had correct response rates over 90%. Most responding physicians identified themselves as either "fairly" (58/124, 47%) or "very" (51/124, 41%) confident. Amongst specialties, there were differences in performance concerning the knowledge assessment (p = 0.049), with the strongest performance from radiologists. There were no differences in knowledge by training level (p = 0.4), though confidence levels differed significantly between attending physicians and trainees (p < 0.001).

conclusionThis study highlights deficiencies in knowledge to support appropriate decision-making surrounding the imaging of pregnant patients. Our results indicate the need for improved physician education and dissemination of standardized clinical guidelines.

Indexed as

Emergency MedicineAdultClinical CompetenceClinical ProtocolsFemaleHumansObstetricsPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsRadiologySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAcute trauma in pregnancyAppendicitis in pregnant patientsImaging in pregnancyIonizing radiation in pregnancyPulmonary embolism in pregnant patients

Identifiers

PMID39400643
PMCPMC11625072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.