Trial reportEuropean radiology2026
Sex differences in inappropriate imaging requests: insights from the Medical Imaging Decision And Support (MIDAS) study.
Trial report in European 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
Abstract
objectiveInappropriate diagnostic imaging can lead to unnecessary radiation exposure, delayed diagnoses, and increased healthcare costs. While multiple factors contribute to inappropriate imaging, sex-based disparities remain understudied. This study investigates whether inappropriate imaging requests differ among women and men. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed baseline data from the MIDAS study, a multi-center cluster-randomized trial conducted in three academic hospitals in Germany. Imaging requests submitted via computerized physician order entry systems were evaluated for appropriateness using the ESR iGuide, a clinical decision support tool based on the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. Requests were classified as appropriate, conditionally appropriate, or inappropriate. We compared the proportion of inappropriate requests between male and female patients using chi-square tests and calculated odds ratios, applying Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons.
resultsAmong 61,220 scored imaging requests, 31,025 were for women and 30,195 for men. The proportion of inappropriate requests was significantly higher in women (7.32%) compared to men (6.08%) (OR 1.22, 99% CI: 1.12-1.33, p < 0.001), with significant differences observed in subgroups for MR and among patients aged 25-65.
conclusionWomen were more likely than men to receive inappropriate imaging requests, suggesting potential disparities in diagnostic decision-making. Addressing these gaps will require further research and more sex- and gender-sensitive approaches in clinical decision-making and guideline development to ensure equitable imaging practices. KEY POINTS: Question Inappropriate diagnostic imaging incurs radiation exposure and costs. Sex-based disparities in this context are understudied; do inappropriate imaging requests differ between men and women? Findings Among 61,220 requests, inappropriate orders were significantly higher in women (7.32%) than in men (6.08%). Clinical relevance Our results suggest sex differences in diagnostic decision-making. Further research and sex- and gender-sensitive approaches in guideline development are needed to ensure equitable imaging practices.
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.