Cited by 28Health disparities and outcomesRace, Genetics, and SocietyGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Patient race or Ethnicity and the use of diagnostic imaging: A systematic review

Colwell, Rebecca L., Narayan, Anand K., Ross, Andrew B.·2022·Journal of the American College of Radiology

Abstract

Objective To summarize the existing literature evaluating differences in imaging use based on patient race and ethnicity.Methods The authors performed a structured search of four databases for the dates January 1, 2000, to April 13, 2021, using key words and derivatives focused on imaging and patient race. Retrieved citations were reviewed by abstract and then full text to identify articles that evaluated the likelihood of imaging use by patient race or ethnicity controlling for sociodemographic factors. Data regarding publication characteristics, study population, clinical setting, and results was extracted and summarized.Results The structured search identified 2,938 articles, of which 206 met inclusion criteria. Most studies (87%, 179 of 206) were conducted in the United States, and the majority (72%, 149 of 206) found decreased or inappropriate imaging use in minority groups. Breast cancer screening was the most common clinical setting (50%, 104 of 206), followed by cancer care (10%, 21 of 206) and general imaging use (9%, 19 of 206). Government-administered surveys were the most common data source (40%, 82 of 206). Only a small minority of studies (8%, 17 of 206) evaluated strategies to mitigate the unequal use of imaging based on patient race and ethnicity.Discussion The existing literature shows decreased or inappropriate use of diagnostic imaging for minority patients across a wide variety of clinical settings. Although the number of articles on the topic is large, the majority are clustered around specific topics, and few articles evaluate potential strategies to reduce the inequitable use of diagnostic imaging.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.01.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Inappropriate use among historically underserved patients has been demonstrated in other areas of diagnostic imaging.

    “Inappropriate use among historically underserved patients has been demonstrated in other areas of diagnostic imaging. 33”

    From AI pitfalls and what not to do: mitigating bias in AI (2023) · cites this paper as [33]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 28

Authors
Colwell, R. L., Narayan, A. K., & Ross, A. B.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Ross, Andrew B.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-04
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
521-528
ISSN
1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4213002294
Cited by
28
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
racial disparities, ethnic disparities, diagnostic imaging utilization, health care inequities, minority patients, breast cancer screening, cancer care
MeSH terms
Ethnicity, Humans, Minority Groups, United States

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