Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38427217›Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2024

Cost of Low-Value Imaging Worldwide: A Systematic Review.

Elin Kjelle, Ingrid Øfsti Brandsæter, Eivind Richter Andersen, Bjørn Morten Hofmann

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Addressing the overuse-underuse paradox in healthcare.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Shoulder pain: to image or not to image?Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elin KjelleDepartment of Health Sciences, Gjøvik at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, Postbox 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway. elin.kjelle@ntnu.no.ORCID 0000-0001-6370-2729
Ingrid Øfsti BrandsæterDepartment of Health Sciences, Gjøvik at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, Postbox 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-0254-7953
Eivind Richter AndersenDepartment of Health Sciences, Gjøvik at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, Postbox 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2573-4222
Bjørn Morten HofmannDepartment of Health Sciences, Gjøvik at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, Postbox 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6709-4265

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 302503
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveImaging with low or no benefit for the patient undermines the quality of care and amounts to vast opportunity costs. More than 3.6 billion imaging examinations are performed annually, and about 20-50% of these are of low value. This study aimed to synthesize knowledge of the costs of low-value imaging worldwide.

methodsThis systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement. The database search was developed in Medline and further adapted to Embase-Ovid, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Primary empirical studies assessing the costs of low-value diagnostic imaging were included if published between 2012 and March 2022. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, descriptive studies, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and mixed-methods studies were eligible. The analysis was descriptive.

resultsOf 5,567 records identified, 106 were included. Most of the studies included were conducted in the USA (n = 76), and a hospital or medical center was the most common setting (n = 82). Thirty-eight of the included studies calculated the costs of multiple imaging modalities; in studies with only one imaging modality included, conventional radiography was the most common (n = 32). Aggregated costs for low-value examinations amounts to billions of dollars per year globally. Initiatives to reduce low-value imaging may reduce costs by up to 95% without harming patients.

conclusionsThis study is the first systematic review of the cost of low-value imaging worldwide, documenting a high potential for cost reduction. Given the universal challenges with resource allocation, the large amount used for low-value imaging represents a vast opportunity cost and offers great potential to improve the quality and efficiency of care.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiagnostic ImagingGlobal HealthHealth Care CostsHumans

Identifiers

PMID38427217
PMCPMC11178636

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.