ArticleInsights into imaging2024
Assessment of Reason for Exam Imaging Reporting and Data System (RI-RADS) in inpatient diagnostic imaging referrals.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between radiological CDSS availability and quality of imaging referrals graded using RI-RADS.iScience · 2026Article
- Emergency radiology demand in a touristic region: residence status as a driver of imaging use.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Inter-rater reliability of MRI Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS) in the follow-up of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.La Radiologia medica · 2026Observational
- Letter to the Editor: The role of prompt engineering and referral completeness in evaluating GPT-4 for MRI protocols.European radiology · 2026Article
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor: The role of prompt engineering and referral completeness in evaluating GPT-4 for MRI protocols.European radiology · 2026Article
- Applying large language model for automated quality scoring of radiology requisitions using a standardized criteria.European radiology · 2026Article
- Better communication between rheumatologists and radiologists is key to improving MRI requesting and reporting data in axial spondyloarthritis: audit data from a single specialist centre.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
- Can radiology requisition quality reflect clinical reasoning? Insights from a RI-RADS evaluation of emergency CT referrals.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Evaluating head CT referral quality and appropriateness in an Italian emergency department: a monocentric retrospective study.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Interrater reliability of MRI Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS) in the follow-up of nasopharyngeal carcinoma after radiation therapy.La Radiologia medica · 2025Observational
- The Role of Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS) in the Management of Head and Neck Cancers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Node Reporting and Data System 1.0 (Node-RADS) for the Assessment of Oncological Patients' Lymph Nodes in Clinical Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test the Reason for Exam Imaging Reporting and Data System (RI-RADS) in assessing the quality of radiology requests in an Italian cohort of inpatients; to evaluate the interobserver reliability of RI-RADS.
methodsA single-center quality care study was designed to retrospectively identify consecutive radiology request forms for computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and conventional radiography examinations. One radiologist scored the requests using the RI-RADS. The association between RI-RADS and clinical request variables (urgent request, on-call requests, indication for imaging, requesting specialty, imaging modality, and body region) was evaluated. We calculated interobserver agreement between four readers in a subset of 450 requests.
resultsWe included 762 imaging requests. RI-RADS grades A (adequate request), B (barely adequate request), C (considerably limited request), D (deficient request), and X were assigned to 8 (1%), 49 (7%), 237 (31%), 404 (53%), and 64 (8%) of cases, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, the indication for imaging, body region, and requesting specialty significantly influenced the RI-RADS. Indications for imaging with a high risk of poor RI-RADS grade were routine preoperative imaging and device check requests. The upper extremity was the body region with the highest risk of poor RI-RADS grade. Requesting specialties with a high risk of poor RI-RADS grade were cardiovascular surgery, intensive care medicine, and orthopedics. The analysis of the interobserver agreement revealed substantial agreement for the RI-RADS grade.
conclusionThe majority of radiology exam requests were inadequate according to RI-RADS, especially those for routine imaging. RI-RADS demonstrated substantial reliability, suggesting that it can be satisfactorily employed in clinical settings. CRITICAL RELEVANT STATEMENT: The implementation of RI-RADS can provide a framework for standardizing radiology requests, thereby enabling quality assurance and promoting a culture of quality improvement. KEY POINTS: RI-RADS aims to grade the completeness of radiology requests. Over half of the imaging requests were RI-RADS D grade; RI-RADS demonstrated substantial reliability. Most radiology requests were inadequate and RI-RADS could classify them in clinical practice.
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.