ArticleEmergency radiology2026
'R/O path' - a quality assurance study of emergency department medical imaging requests during on-call hours.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the appropriateness of emergency department (ED) on-call medical imaging requests and the corresponding radiology reports.
methodsTwo researchers reviewed all CT, MRI, and ultrasound scans ordered from January 1 to December 31, 2022 by ED physicians during on-call hours at a major Canadian hospital network (estimated 2.5 million catchment population). Scan indications were evaluated for: (1) containing any clinical history and (2) providing a clinical question and/or specific differential diagnosis. Radiology report impressions were categorized as either: (1) normal (including chronic and/or stable findings); (2) positive for the clinical question and/or differential diagnosis provided; (3) positive for a condition that could reasonably explain the provided clinical history/question; or (4) only containing incidental findings unrelated to the indication. Inter-rater reliability for the scoring was assessed with the κ statistic.
resultsAmong 85,066 scans ordered during ED encounters in 2022, 18,201 met inclusion criteria including 248 (1.4%) MRI, 3587 (19.7%) US, and 14,366 (78.9%) CT scans. Most requests (74.2%) provided clinical history and a differential diagnosis; a minority provided only clinical history (15.0%) or only a clinical question/differential diagnosis (10.7%). Most imaging studies contained only normal or chronic findings (62.0%). Approximately 12.5% of studies were positive for the specified differential diagnosis, 4.1% were positive for a condition that could reasonably explain the provided clinical history/question, and 21.3% identified unrelated incidental findings.
conclusionThe high percentage of negative scans may be an unavoidable consequence of modern medicine's growing dependence on imaging. However, ensuring that imaging tests are appropriately ordered and automating routine steps of the image acquisition workflow may mitigate strains on radiology departments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41071243What 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.