↓ Skip to main content

Changes in Physician Decision Making after CT: A Prospective Multicenter Study in Primary Care Settings

Overview of attention for article published in Radiology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Changes in Physician Decision Making after CT: A Prospective Multicenter Study in Primary Care Settings
Published in
Radiology, July 2016
DOI 10.1148/radiol.2016152887
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Purpose To determine the effect of computed tomography (CT) results on physician decision making in three common clinical scenarios in primary care. Materials and Methods This research was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) and was HIPAA compliant. All physicians consented to participate with an opt-in or opt-out mechanism; patient consent was waived with IRB approval. In this prospective multicenter observational study, outpatients referred by primary care providers (PCPs) for CT evaluation of abdominal pain, hematuria, or weight loss were identified. Prior to CT, PCPs were surveyed to elicit their leading diagnosis, confidence in that diagnosis (confidence range, 0%-100%), a rule-out diagnosis, and a management plan if CT were not available. Surveys were repeated after CT. Study measures were the proportion of patients in whom leading diagnoses and management changed (PCP management vs specialist referral vs emergency department transfer), median changes in diagnostic confidence, and the proportion of patients in whom CT addressed rule-out diagnoses. Regression analyses were used to identify associations between study measures and site and participant characteristics. Specifically, logistic regression analysis was used for binary study measures (change in leading diagnosis, change in management), and linear regression analysis was used for the continuous study measure (change in diagnostic confidence). Accrual began on September 5, 2012, and ended on June 28, 2014. Results In total, 91 PCPs completed pre- and post-CT surveys in 373 patients. In patients with abdominal pain, hematuria, or weight loss, leading diagnoses changed after CT in 53% (131 of 246), 49% (36 of 73), and 57% (27 of 47) of patients, respectively. Management changed in 35% (86 of 248), 27% (20 of 74), and 54% (26 of 48) of patients, respectively. Median absolute changes in diagnostic confidence were substantial and significant (+20%, +20%, and +19%, respectively; P ≤ .001 for all); median confidence after CT was high (90%, 88%, and 80%, respectively). PCPs reported CT was helpful in confirming or excluding rule-out diagnoses in 98% (184 of 187), 97% (59 of 61), and 97% (33 of 34) of patients, respectively. Significant associations between primary measures and site and participant characteristics were not identified. Conclusion Changes in PCP leading diagnoses and management after CT were common, and diagnostic confidence increased substantially. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Engineering 5 7%
Psychology 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 21 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2025.
All research outputs
#2,585,894
of 32,919,153 outputs
Outputs from Radiology
#2,058
of 14,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,370
of 327,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiology
#21
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,919,153 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,908 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.