ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2025
Predictors of Physician Agreement With Radiologist-Recommended Follow-up Imaging.
Article 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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAlthough recommendations for additional imaging are common in radiology reports, completion of follow-up imaging does not always occur, which could reflect disagreement between radiologist and referring provider. We assessed how frequently referring providers agree with radiologists' follow-up recommendations, reasons for disagreement, and factors associated with radiologist-referring provider agreement.
methodsThis institutional review board-exempt, retrospective study was performed at a large academic center. A PACS-integrated tool allowed radiologists to send follow-up imaging recommendations to referring providers, who used the tool to document agreement or disagreement with recommendations. The study included recommendations sent for outpatients between October 21, 2019, and October 31, 2022. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify patient, radiologist, and imaging examination factors associated with radiologist-referring provider agreement.
resultsOf the 9,406 recommendations meeting inclusion criteria, 8,331 (88.6%) resulted in agreement. The most common reason for disagreement was that the recommendation was considered not clinically relevant (44.5%, 478 of 1,075). The following factors were associated with low rates of agreement: referring provider being a surgeon (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, P < .001) or recommendation for follow-up nuclear imaging (OR 0.64, P = .012). The odds of agreement were higher for recommendations made by thoracic radiologists (OR 1.41, P = .002) and for recommendations with longer follow-up time frames (weeks) (OR 1.03, P < .001). Patient race, ethnicity, insurance type, and living in a socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhood were not significantly associated with radiologist-referring provider agreement. DISCUSSION: Referring providers frequently agree with follow-up imaging recommendations made by radiologists for outpatients, and patient demographics and socio-economic factors do not seem to significantly impact radiologist-referring provider agreement.
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.