ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Decreasing inappropriate MRCP with contrast exams: impact of an EMR-Embedded clinical care pathway.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDecrease unnecessary abdominal MRI with intravenous contrast with MRCP exams for emergency department and inpatients.
methodsOur institution's two MRCP orders were removed from the electronic medical record (one with intravenous (IV) contrast and the other without), with all providers directed to a new MRCP clinical care pathway containing clinical guidance and links to the appropriate orders based on indication and patient characteristics. Before and after deployment, a random set of MRCP with contrast orders were reviewed for clinical appropriateness of needing IV contrast. A manual tracking of "patient in room" time was performed to compare MRI resource use for MRCP exams with contrast vs. non-contrast. A commercial clinical decision support (CDS) tool was active throughout the study period. Statistical significance was assessed with Chi-square test.
resultsAt baseline, 71% (142/200) of MRCP exams were completed with contrast and 29% (58/200) without contrast. After two plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, percentage of MRCPs performed with contrast decreased to 56% (p = 0.003), a 22% relative decrease, and MRCPs performed without contrast increased to 44%, a 53% relative increase. At baseline, contrast use was deemed inappropriate in 54% (29/54) of MRCP studies. Reassessment after PDSA cycle 1 showed a decrease in inappropriate MRCP with contrast orders to 25% (9/36), a 53% relative decrease (p = 0.007). Mean "in room" time was 11.5 min longer for MRCP with contrast exams.
conclusionDespite CDS, MRCP with contrast orders were deemed inappropriate 54% of the time at baseline. Redesigning the MRCP ordering process via creation of a pathway with embedded clinical guidance significantly decreased the proportion of contrast-enhanced MRCP exams by 22% and improved relative clinical appropriateness of MRCP with contrast exams by 62%. Properly directing ordering providers to non-contrast MRCP orders can help reduce healthcare costs, reduce unnecessary gadolinium exposure, and improve MR scanner efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439723What 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.