Joshua R Vest1, Hye-Young Jung2, Aaron Ostrovsky2, Lala Tanmoy Das3, Geraldine B McGinty4. 1. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. Electronic address: joshvest@iu.edu. 2. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York; Greenberg Division of Cardiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 4. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Image sharing technologies may reduce unneeded imaging by improving provider access to imaging information. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to summarize the impact of image sharing technologies on patient imaging utilization. METHODS: Quantitative evaluations of the effects of PACS, regional image exchange networks, interoperable electronic heath records, tools for importing physical media, and health information exchange systems on utilization were identified through a systematic review of the published and gray English-language literature (2004-2014). Outcomes, standard effect sizes (ESs), settings, technology, populations, and risk of bias were abstracted from each study. The impact of image sharing technologies was summarized with random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression models. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles were included in the review, with a total of 42 different studies. Image sharing technology was associated with a significant decrease in repeat imaging (pooled effect size [ES] = -0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-0.25, -0.09]; P < .001). However, image sharing technology was associated with a significant increase in any imaging utilization (pooled ES = 0.20; 95% CI = [0.07, 0.32]; P = .002). For all outcomes combined, image sharing technology was not associated with utilization. Most studies were at risk for bias. CONCLUSIONS: Image sharing technology was associated with reductions in repeat and unnecessary imaging, in both the overall literature and the most-rigorous studies. Stronger evidence is needed to further explore the role of specific technologies and their potential impact on various modalities, patient populations, and settings.
INTRODUCTION: Image sharing technologies may reduce unneeded imaging by improving provider access to imaging information. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to summarize the impact of image sharing technologies on patient imaging utilization. METHODS: Quantitative evaluations of the effects of PACS, regional image exchange networks, interoperable electronic heath records, tools for importing physical media, and health information exchange systems on utilization were identified through a systematic review of the published and gray English-language literature (2004-2014). Outcomes, standard effect sizes (ESs), settings, technology, populations, and risk of bias were abstracted from each study. The impact of image sharing technologies was summarized with random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression models. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles were included in the review, with a total of 42 different studies. Image sharing technology was associated with a significant decrease in repeat imaging (pooled effect size [ES] = -0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-0.25, -0.09]; P < .001). However, image sharing technology was associated with a significant increase in any imaging utilization (pooled ES = 0.20; 95% CI = [0.07, 0.32]; P = .002). For all outcomes combined, image sharing technology was not associated with utilization. Most studies were at risk for bias. CONCLUSIONS: Image sharing technology was associated with reductions in repeat and unnecessary imaging, in both the overall literature and the most-rigorous studies. Stronger evidence is needed to further explore the role of specific technologies and their potential impact on various modalities, patient populations, and settings.
Authors: James E Bailey; Jim Y Wan; Lisa M Mabry; Stephen H Landy; Rebecca A Pope; Teresa M Waters; Mark E Frisse Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Christine Marie Carr; Charles Samuel Gilman; Diann Marie Krywko; Haley Elizabeth Moore; Brenda J Walker; Steven Howard Saef Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Carolyn L Turvey; Dawn M Klein; Kim M Nazi; Susan T Haidary; Omar Bouhaddou; Nelson Hsing; Margaret Donahue Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Hailey H Choi; Amy L Kotsenas; Joshua Vic Chen; Christina Bronsky; Christopher J Roth; Marc D Kohli Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Ninh Thi Ha; Susannah Maxwell; Max K Bulsara; Jenny Doust; Donald Mcrobbie; Peter O'Leary; John Slavotinek; Rachael Moorin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: George J Arnaoutakis; Takuya Ogami; Edgar Aranda-Michel; Yancheng Dai; Reed Holmes; Thomas M Beaver; Derek Serna-Gallegos; Tomas D Martin; Forozan Navid; Sarah Yousef; Ibrahim Sultan Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 6.106