Background/Objectives: Since the initial approach towards the clinical presentation of soft-tissue masses is challenging for frontline physicians, some countries use clinical practice guidelines. Proper imaging work-up is crucial to differentiate between soft-tissue tumors. Recently, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been widely used. But there is some controversy about whether pre-referral evaluations are being conducted properly. Thus, this study aims to assess whether the ultrasonography investigation of soft-tissue masses prior to referral to the musculoskeletal tumor center is being performed adequately in terms of indications, diagnostic accuracy, and referral interval, and to evaluate whether the pre-referral MRI for soft-tissue masses is being conducted reasonably concerning indications, imaging protocol, reporting, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. Methods: The study protocol was registered. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. We performed a database search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Then, two authors reviewed the studies, and the third author resolved any disagreement between them. A total of nine studies were included. The Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions was applied. Relevant data were extracted by two authors. Results: This review showed that the way that the imaging investigations are performed in non-specialized centers before referral was generally considered inappropriate. Conclusions: Frontline physicians should regard the alarm symptom as an indication for advanced imaging evaluation. Education and certification may be required for ultrasonography. MRI should be performed and interpreted in a specialized center or by a specialist with relevant expertise. Guidance may help reduce inappropriate imaging.
