ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
European multicenter study on recurrent imaging practice in computed tomography.
Article in The British journal of 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study compares recurrent CT imaging practices across European centers using incidence and prevalence metrics and evaluates the feasibility of a novel benchmarking tool for recurrent imaging practice.
methodsCT exposure data were collected from 31 facilities across 18 European countries. The single-year incidence proportion (I100;1), 3-year cumulative incidence (I100;3), and 3-year prevalence proportion (P100;3) of patients with cumulative effective dose (CED) ≥ 100 mSv were calculated and statistically analyzed against relevant indicators. The reference year was 2023, and the 3-year period covered 2022-2024.
resultsThe database comprised 711 749 patients in 2023 who underwent 1 658 246 CT exams, with an average of 1.5 ± 0.6 CT exams per patient in this year and 2.4 ± 0.6 exams over 3 years. Across facilities, I100;1 ranged from 0% to 2.9%, I100;3 from 0% to 8.6%, and P100;3 ranged from 0% to 4.4%. A strong linear correlation was found between the third quartile values of yearly CED and I100;1. Multiple linear relationship was identified between I100;3, third quartile of yearly CED and percentage of recurrent patients. Third quartiles of yearly CED varied between 7.5 and 29.5 mSv, with the 75th percentile of their distribution 17.6 mSv, lower than in previous studies.
conclusionIncidence proportion is preferred for assessing recurrent imaging rates as prevalence substantially underestimates these rates. The 75th percentile of distribution of third quartiles of yearly CED is a reasonable benchmark level to trigger optimization. Investigating the underlying factors and addressing high recurrent rates can contribute to enhanced patient care. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This first European multicenter study showed that the epidemiological index incidence proportion is a better metric to quantify recurrent imaging compared to prevalence. The distribution of early CED values can be used to benchmark recurrent imaging practices and inform patient management strategies.
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.