Observational studyJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2025
Patient Photograph Association With Radiologist Recommendations for Additional Imaging.
Observational study in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2025. 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.
- Two-Year Lung Cancer Incidence Among Patients Who Receive a Radiologist Recommendation for Chest CT in Neck CT and MRI Reports.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Observational
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
Abstract
objectiveAssess whether display of a patient photograph in the electronic health record (EHR) alongside head and neck CT or MRI radiology examinations is associated with recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) and whether self-reported race modifies that association.
methodsThis multi-institution health care system retrospective observational study from June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022 included all patients with a head/neck CT or MRI report. We investigated association of photograph with RAIs using mixed-effects models adjusting for age, sex, complexity score, race, and area deprivation index while conditioning on patient and radiologist. Race was subsequently included as an interaction term. Multiple imputation was used as sensitivity analysis to address missing race data.
resultsIn all, 60,543 reports were included from 48,143 patients (55.6% female; median age 58 years, interquartile range 40-70). The EHR included a photograph at the time 18.2% (11,048 of 60,543) of reports were signed. RAIs were included in 7.5% (4,522 of 60,543) of reports. Reports signed when a photograph was displayed had lower estimated odds of containing RAIs (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.93, P < .001), consistent in sensitivity analysis, with no clear interaction between race and photograph (odds ratio: 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.46, P = .97). DISCUSSION: Patients with a photograph in the EHR had a lower probability of receiving RAIs and this difference did not seem to be the result of implicit racial bias but may be due to personalization of the encounter. This effect may influence radiology reporting for millions of patients per year. Further research is needed to determine whether the association has a positive or negative impact on care quality and outcomes.
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.