ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Can radiology requisition quality reflect clinical reasoning? Insights from a RI-RADS evaluation of emergency CT referrals.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between radiological CDSS availability and quality of imaging referrals graded using RI-RADS.iScience · 2026Article
- Clinical Evaluation Before MRI Referral: Frequency and Association with Diagnostic Yield.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine radiology requisition quality using reason for exam imaging reporting and data system (RI-RADS), and the associated clinical variables, and whether it can reflect the clinical reasoning quality in emergency CT referrals. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center retrospective study randomly selected emergency CT referrals between 01 January 2024 and 31 December 2024. One radiologist scored the requisition quality using the RI-RADS, and assessed the clinical reasoning quality, evaluating the extent to which the differential diagnoses on the requisition form matched the CT diagnosis on the issued report. The clinical variables associated with RI-RADS A were investigated using logistic regression analysis. The clinical reasoning quality among different RI-RADS grades was compared.
resultsWe included 1291 emergency CT referrals. RI-RADS grades A (adequate), B (barely adequate), C (considerably limited), D (deficient), and X (no information) were assigned to 287 (22.2%), 71 (5.5%), 851 (65.9%), 53 (4.1%), and 29 (2.2%) requisitions, respectively. The requisitions from the fever clinic and thoracic surgery were less likely to be assigned to RI-RADS A compared to internal medicine (odds ratio 0.10-0.11), and so were those of abdomen and head scans compared to chest scans (odds ratio 0.06-0.30). The RI-RADS A requisitions had better clinical reasoning quality than those of RI-RADS grades C, D, and X (all adjusted p < 0.001), but not those of RI-RADS B (adjusted p = 0.100).
conclusionThe majority of emergency CT requisitions were inadequate, especially those from the fever clinic and thoracic surgery. Suboptimal requisitions were associated with poorer clinical reasoning quality. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Radiologists' concerns are valid that low-quality radiology requisitions may reflect poorer clinical reasoning. The use of standardized requisition frameworks like RI-RADS may help bridge the gap between diagnostic imaging and clinical reasoning, promoting safer and more effective patient care. KEY POINTS: Radiologists often complain about low-quality radiology requisitions with low clinical reasoning quality from clinicians. The radiological requisitions with lower quality according to RI-RADS were associated with worse clinical reasoning quality. Improving the quality of radiological requisitions after detailed clinical reasoning is warranted to improve radiology workflow for better medical practice.
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.