ReviewInsights into imaging2025
Challenges and insights from implementing clinical decision support systems for radiologic imaging: experience from the MIDAS trial.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05490290 (Medical Imaging Decision And Support), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Medical Imaging Decision And Support
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inappropriate imaging requests in abdominal imaging: observations from the MIDAS study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial in Germany.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Trial
- Sex differences in inappropriate imaging requests: insights from the Medical Imaging Decision And Support (MIDAS) study.European radiology · 2026Trial
- Emergency radiology subspeciality: thematic analysis & future perspective.Emergency radiology · 2026Review
- Patient perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence to support treatment decision making in renal cancer: findings from the KATY project.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- A narrative review of imaging misallocation in peripheral artery disease: a value-based medicine perspective.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been developed to give guidance for referring physicians to make appropriate decisions at the point of care. The MIDAS study, a multicenter cluster randomized trial at four German university hospitals, was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a CDSS for imaging referral (ESR iGuide) in routine clinical care. Based on our experience within the MIDAS study, we aim to describe the hurdles and difficulties, as well as the various insights gained, in the process of implementing a CDSS in a clinical and research setting. To successfully implement a CDSS for imaging requests, it is essential to monitor and address technical issues, adapt local workflows, define the scope and content, and prioritize user experience and acceptance. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By identifying and addressing the various technical, content-related, and workflow challenges, this article gives valuable insights to facilitate future implementations of the ESR iGuide and similar clinical decision support systems CDSSs for imaging orders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Approval from the Medical Ethics Review Committee was obtained under protocol numbers 20-069 (Augsburg), B 238/21 (Kiel), 20-318 (Lübeck) and 2020-15125 (Mainz). The trial is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov register under registration number NCT05490290. KEY POINTS: This manuscript reviews the challenges of implementing a clinical decision support system (CDSS) (ESR iGuide). Clinical implementation of a CDSS for imaging requests requires monitoring and adjustments in technical issues, local workflow, scope and content, and attention to user experience and acceptance. Our experience may equip stakeholders with the knowledge to proactively address these challenges.
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.