ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Are 10-Year-Old Imaging Tests Likely to Be Useful or Can They Be Purged?
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many healthcare institutions have large archives of digital medical images. A shared dilemma is whether to purge or continue to store older radiology exams. We sought to determine if our institution's imaging exams > 10 years old were likely to be used for clinical purposes or if they could be deleted from storage without potential lost benefit to our patients. In compliance with our institutional review board, our institutional PACS database was queried to evaluate if old exams had been opened in the last 2 years. We analyzed by modality, body part, and subspecialty reading division. We performed a retrospective chart review of a random sampling (n = 100) of the identified studies to validate the assumption that many of the loaded studies were likely to have been viewed for clinical purposes. We found that over the recent past 2-year interval, our providers accessed 201,000 of 4 million (5%) imaging studies which were > 10 years of age at the time of access. We found evidence, some of it definitive, validating that many of these were viewed for clinical purposes. We conclude that if imaging studies > 10 years of age are readily available, they are commonly called upon to potentially contribute to medical decision-making. This potential value to the patient should be considered when determining whether to prune older archived imaging studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41102425What 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.