Evidenced-based radiology? A single-institution review of imaging referral appropriateness including monetary and dose estimates for inappropriate scans

Ryan, James W.; Hollywood, Aoife; Stirling, Aaron; Glynn, Martina; MacMahon, Peter; Bolster, Ferdia

doi:10.1007/s11845-019-02005-8

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier research found that 20–50% of radiological examinations are overused, however, this rate varies between and within countries [ 2 , 6 – 8 ]. Recommendations and guidelines such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE’s) “Do-not-do list,” iRefer, iGuide and the international Choosing Wisely campaign have been introduced to reduce overutilization in health care and reduce low-value care, including diagnostic imaging [ 9 – 11 ]. So far, the impact of such efforts is reportedly low, as patient expectations of advanced diagnostic tests, lack of knowledge among health care professionals on the right use of imaging, established clinical practice, fear of malpractice, and fee-for-service reimbursement systems continue to drive the use of low-value care [ 6 , 12 – 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources is a common problem, constituting 10–34% of health services spending in the western world. Even though diagnostic imaging is vital for identifying correct diagnoses and administrating the right treatment, low-value imaging—in which the diagnostic test confers little to no clinical benefit—is common and contributes to inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources. There is a lack of knowledge on the types and extent of low-value imaging. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and quantify the extent of low-value diagnostic imaging examinations for adults and children. Methods A scoping review of the published literature was performed. Medline-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 2010 to September 2020. The search strategy was built from medical subject headings (Mesh) for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology OR Health service misuse/Medical overuse OR Procedures and Techniques Utilization/Facilities and Services Utilization. Articles in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian were included. Results A total of 39,986 records were identified and, of these, 370 studies were included in the final synthesis. Eighty-four low-value imaging examinations were identified. Imaging of atraumatic pain, routine imaging in minor head injury, trauma, thrombosis, urolithiasis, after thoracic interventions, fracture follow-up and cancer staging/follow-up were the most frequently identified low-value imaging examinations. The proportion of low-value imaging varied between 2 and 100% inappropriate or unnecessary examinations. Conclusions A comprehensive list of identified low-value radiological examinations for both adults and children are presented. Future research should focus on reasons for low-value imaging utilization and interventions to reduce the use of low-value imaging internationally. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020208072.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several interventions to reduce low-value imaging have been evaluated in the literature, including guidelines such as iRefer, iGuide, as well as national and international initiatives such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) “Do-not-do list,” and the Choosing Wisely campaign [ 9 – 12 ]. However, the effect of such efforts on low-value diagnostic imaging has been limited due to barriers such as financial incentives, practice behavior, self-referral, lack of feedback, patient expectations, and duplicate imaging examinations [ 5 , 11 , 13 – 17 ]. Some interventions even seem to increase the use of inappropriate imaging [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to reduce low-value imaging – a systematic review of interventions and outcomes

Kjelle

Andersen

Soril

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is estimated that 20–50% of all radiological examinations are of low value. Many attempts have been made to reduce the use of low-value imaging. However, the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value imaging is unclear. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview and evaluate the outcomes of interventions aimed at reducing low-value imaging. Methods An electronic database search was completed in Medline – Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for citations between 2010 and 2020. The search was built from medical subject headings for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology, Health service misuse or medical overuse, and Health planning. Keywords were used for the concept of reduction and avoidance. Reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched for relevant citations. Only articles written in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and Swedish were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included articles. A narrative synthesis of the final included articles was completed. Results The search identified 15,659 records. After abstract and full-text screening, 95 studies of varying quality were included in the final analysis, containing 45 studies found through hand-searching techniques. Both controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after studies, time series, chart reviews, and cohort studies were included. Most interventions were aimed at referring physicians. Clinical practice guidelines (n = 28) and education (n = 28) were most commonly evaluated interventions, either alone or in combination with other components. Multi-component interventions were often more effective than single-component interventions showing a reduction in the use of low-value imaging in 94 and 74% of the studies, respectively. The most addressed types of imaging were musculoskeletal (n = 26), neurological (n = 23) and vascular (n = 16) imaging. Seventy-seven studies reported reduced low-value imaging, while 3 studies reported an increase. Conclusions Multi-component interventions that include education were often more effective than single-component interventions. The contextual and cultural factors in the health care systems seem to be vital for successful reduction of low-value imaging. Further research should focus on assessing the impact of the context in interventions reducing low-value imaging and how interventions can be adapted to different contexts.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five included studies (10%) were interventional studies [83,87,97,106,107]. The analyzed interventions included guideline implementations [83,87,107], radiological consultations [97] for residents and clinical decision support systems [106]. Two guideline implementations [83,107] and clinical decision support [106] showed significantly improved appropriateness results.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring appropriateness of diagnostic imaging: a scoping review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In radiology, the justification of diagnostic imaging is a key performance indicator. To date, specific recommendations on the measurement of appropriateness in diagnostic imaging are missing. To map the study literature concerning the definition, measures, methods and data used for analyses of appropriateness in research of diagnostic imaging. We conducted a scoping review in Medline, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two independent reviewers undertook screening and data extraction. After screening 6021 records, we included 50 studies. National guidelines (n = 22/50) or American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (n = 23/50) were used to define and rate appropriateness. 22/50 studies did not provide methodological details about the appropriateness assessment. The included studies varied concerning modality, amount of reviewed examinations (88–13,941) and body regions. Computed tomography (27 studies, 27,168 examinations) was the most frequently analyzed modality, followed by magnetic resonance imaging (17 studies, 6559 examinations) and radiography (10 studies, 7095 examinations). Heterogeneous appropriateness rates throughout single studies (0–100%), modalities, and body regions (17–95%) were found. Research on pediatric and outpatient imaging was sparse. Multicentric, methodologically robust and indication-oriented studies would strengthen appropriateness research in diagnostic imaging and help to develop reliable key performance indicators.

show abstract

Evidenced-based radiology? A single-institution review of imaging referral appropriateness including monetary and dose estimates for inappropriate scans

Cited by 16 publications

References 10 publications

Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review

Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review

Interventions to reduce low-value imaging – a systematic review of interventions and outcomes

Measuring appropriateness of diagnostic imaging: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About