Trial reportAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Inappropriate imaging requests in abdominal imaging: observations from the MIDAS study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial in Germany.
Trial report in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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. 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.
Medical Imaging Decision And Support
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDiagnostic imaging is essential in evaluating abdominal pathology, yet inappropriate imaging requests remain a concern due to potential radiation exposure, extended hospital stays, increased healthcare costs, and resource strain. However, little is known about the extent of inappropriate imaging in abdominal radiology. This study investigates the prevalence of inappropriate imaging across imaging modalities and departments in three German hospitals.
methodsWe analyzed all 3393 scored abdominal imaging requests submitted by any of 13 departments from three German university hospitals over a 2.5-year period within the context of the MIDAS trial (NCT05490290). Each request was scored for appropriateness using the European Society for Radiology (ESR) iGuide and categorized as appropriate, appropriate under certain conditions, or inappropriate. Descriptive statistics were used to assess appropriateness overall, by modality, and by patient demographics. Estimated radiation exposure and cost were also calculated using standardized dose and pricing models.
resultsOf all scored imaging requests, 6.19% were deemed inappropriate (99% Confidence Interval (CI) 5.12-7.25). Ultrasound had the highest proportion of inappropriate requests (12.35%, 99% CI 8.14-16.56), followed by fluoroscopy (7.14%, 99% CI 1.23-13.05), Computed Tomography (CT) (5.47%, 99% CI 3.94-6.99), MRI (5.20%, 99% CI 3.63-6.77), and conventional radiography (1.89%, 99% CI 0-6.70). The most frequently requested exams were chest/abdominal/pelvic CTs, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Abdomen, MRI pelvis, abdominal ultrasound and CT angiogram chest/abdomen/pelvis. The total estimated radiation exposure of requested exams was 27,954 miligray (mGy), and the total associated cost was €604,411.
conclusionInappropriate abdominal imaging requests were relatively uncommon but varied across modalities. The findings in this paper highlight areas for potential improvement in imaging practices, further training and further development of clinical decision support tools to enhance guideline adherence in real-world settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41417083What 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.