The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trends in Use of Medical Imaging in US Health Care Systems and in Ontario, Canada, 2000-2016
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Medical imaging increased rapidly from 2000 to 2006, but trends in recent years have not been analyzed. Objective: To evaluate recent trends in medical imaging. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of patterns of medical imaging between 2000 and 2016 among 16 million to 21 million patients enrolled annually in 7 US integrated and mixed-model insurance health care systems and for individuals receiving care in Ontario, Canada. Exposures: Calendar year and country (United States vs Canada). Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, and nuclear medicine imaging. Annual and relative imaging rates by imaging modality, country, and age (children [<18 years], adults [18-64 years], and older adults [≥65 years]). Results: Overall, 135 774 532 imaging examinations were included; 5 439 874 (4%) in children, 89 635 312 (66%) in adults, and 40 699 346 (30%) in older adults. Among adults and older adults, imaging rates were significantly higher in 2016 vs 2000 for all imaging modalities other than nuclear medicine. For example, among older adults, CT imaging rates were 428 per 1000 person-years in 2016 vs 204 per 1000 in 2000 in US health care systems and 409 per 1000 vs 161 per 1000 in Ontario; for MRI, 139 per 1000 vs 62 per 1000 in the United States and 89 per 1000 vs 13 per 1000 in Ontario; and for ultrasound, 495 per 1000 vs 324 per 1000 in the United States and 580 per 1000 vs 332 per 1000 in Ontario. Annual growth in imaging rates among US adults and older adults slowed over time for CT (from an 11.6% annual percentage increase among adults and 9.5% among older adults in 2000-2006 to 3.7% among adults in 2013-2016 and 5.2% among older adults in 2014-2016) and for MRI (from 11.4% in 2000-2004 in adults and 11.3% in 2000-2005 in older adults to 1.3% in 2007-2016 in adults and 2.2% in 2005-2016 in older adults). Patterns in Ontario were similar. Among children, annual growth for CT stabilized or declined (United States: from 10.1% in 2000-2005 to 0.8% in 2013-2016; Ontario: from 3.3% in 2000-2006 to -5.3% in 2006-2016), but patterns for MRI were similar to adults. Changes in annual growth in ultrasound were smaller among adults and children in the United States and Ontario compared with CT and MRI. Nuclear medicine imaging declined in adults and children after 2006. Conclusions and Relevance: From 2000 to 2016 in 7 US integrated and mixed-model health care systems and in Ontario, rates of CT and MRI use continued to increase among adults, but at a slower pace in more recent years. In children, imaging rates continued to increase except for CT, which stabilized or declined in more recent periods. Whether the observed imaging utilization was appropriate or was associated with improved patient outcomes is unknown.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
van Walraven, C., Austin, P. C., Jennings, A., Quan, H., & Forster, A. J. (2009) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819432e5 · Cited by 2,200
Smith-Bindman, R., Miglioretti, D. L., Johnson, E., Lee, C., Feigelson, H. S., Flynn, M., Greenlee, R. T., Kruger, R. L., Hornbrook, M. C., Roblin, D., et al. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5960 · Cited by 898
Self-citation
Cited by
Huang, S.-C., Pareek, A., Jensen, M., Lungren, M. P., Yeung, S., & Chaudhari, A. S. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00811-0 · Cited by 479
“The importance of medical imaging is exempli fi ed by the consistent rate of growth in medical imaging utilization in modern healthcare 1,2 .”
BackgroundProjected Lifetime Cancer Risks From Current Computed Tomography Imaging
Smith-Bindman, R., Chu, P. W., Azman Firdaus, H., Stewart, C., Malekhedayat, M., Alber, S., Bolch, W. E., Mahendra, M., Berrington de González, A., & Miglioretti, D. L. (2025) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0505 · Cited by 358
Self-citationU-Net-Based Medical Image Segmentation
Yin, X.-X., Sun, L., Fu, Y., Lu, R., & Zhang, Y. (2022) · Journal of Healthcare Engineering · doi:10.1155/2022/4189781 · Cited by 318
RetractedHauptmann, M., Byrnes, G., Cardis, E., Bernier, M.-O., Blettner, M., Dabin, J., Engels, H., Istad, T. S., Johansen, C., Kaijser, M., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00655-6 · Cited by 273
Mastrodicasa, D., van Assen, M., Huisman, M., Leiner, T., Williamson, E. E., Nicol, E. D., Allen, B. D., Saba, L., Vliegenthart, R., & Hanneman, K. (2025) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.240516 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith-Bindman, R., Kwan, M. L., Marlow, E. C., Theis, M. K., Bolch, W., Cheng, S. Y., Bowles, E. J. A., Duncan, J. R., Greenlee, R. T., Kushi, L. H., Pole, J. D., Rahm, A. K., Stout, N. K., Weinmann, S., & Miglioretti, D. L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-09-03
- Volume
- 322
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 843
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2971828568
- Cited by
- 706
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 32.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trends in Use of Medical Imaging in US Health Care Systems and in Ontario, Canada, 2000-2016. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2019.11456
- The paper
- Smith-Bindman, R., Kwan, M. L., Marlow, E. C., Theis, M. K., Bolch, W., Cheng, S. Y., Bowles, E. J. A., Duncan, J. R., Greenlee, R. T., Kushi, L. H., Pole, J. D., Rahm, A. K., Stout, N. K., Weinmann, S., & Miglioretti, D. L. (2019). Trends in Use of Medical Imaging in US Health Care Systems and in Ontario, Canada, 2000-2016. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.11456
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.