Radiologist Point-of-Care Clinical Decision Support and Adherence to Guidelines for Incidental Lung Nodules
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the effect of a workstation-integrated, point-of-care, clinical decision support (CDS) tool on radiologist adherence to radiology department guidelines for follow-up of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on abdominal CT. Methods The CDS tool was developed to facilitate adherence to department guidelines for managing pulmonary nodules seen on abdominal CT. In October 2012, the tool was deployed within the radiology department of an academic medical center and could be used for a given abdominal CT at the discretion of the interpreting radiologist. We retrospectively identified consecutive patients who underwent abdominal CT (in the period from January 2012 to April 2013), had no comparison CT scans available, and were reported to have a solid, noncalcified, pulmonary nodule. Concordance between radiologist follow-up recommendation and department guidelines was compared among three groups: patients scanned before implementation of the CDS tool; and patients scanned after implementation, with versus without use of the tool. Results A total of 409 patients were identified, including 268 for the control group. Overall, guideline concordance was higher after CDS tool implementation (92 of 141 [65%] versus 133 of 268 [50%], P = .003). This finding was driven by the subset of post-CDS implementation cases in which the CDS tool was used (57 of 141 [40%]). In these cases, guideline concordance was significantly higher (54 of 57 [95%]), compared with post-implementation cases in which CDS was not used (38 of 84 [45%], P < .001), and to a control group of patients from before implementation (133 of 268 [50%]; P < .001). Conclusions A point-of-care CDS tool was associated with improved adherence to guidelines for follow-up of incidental pulmonary nodules.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In practice, physicians have the ability to solicit opinions from other practitioners and can be aided by clinical decision-support systems.
“In practice, physicians have the ability to solicit opinions from other practitioners21, and can be aided by clinical decision-support systems22.”
From Do as AI say: susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids (2021) · cites this paper as [22]
Cites
Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
Weinstein, M. C. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540150055031 · Cited by 2,455 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Do as AI say: susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids
Gaube, S., Suresh, H., Raue, M., Merritt, A., Berkowitz, S. J., Lermer, E., Coughlin, J. F., Guttag, J. V., Colak, E., & Ghassemi, M. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00385-9 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Advancements in standardizing radiological reports: a comprehensive review
Pesapane, F., Tantrige, P., De Marco, P., Carriero, S., Zugni, F., Nicosia, L., Bozzini, A. C., Rotili, A., Latronico, A., Abbate, F., et al. (2023) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina59091679 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lu, M. T., Rosman, D. A., Wu, C. C., Gilman, M. D., Harvey, H. B., Gervais, D. A., Alkasab, T. K., Shepard, J.-A. O., Boland, G. W., & Pandharipande, P. V.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lu, Michael T.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Radiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 156-162
- ISSN
- 1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2197898845
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 7.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- clinical decision support, incidental pulmonary nodules, guideline adherence, abdominal CT
- MeSH terms
- Solitary Pulmonary Nodule, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Point-of-Care Systems, Guideline Adherence, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Incidental Findings
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