Unnecessary ultrasounds in children with undescended testes: An interrogation of the impact of the Choosing Wisely campaigns and clinical practice guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Over the past decade, clinical practice guidelines and educational campaigns have counselled against the use of routine ultrasound (US) in the diagnosis of undescended testes (UDT). We aimed to establish whether or not there has been change in the proportion of children with UDT undergoing pre-referral US prior to referral to our centre over this period. We also sought to determine whether type of referring specialist, UDT diagnosis, and patient distance from the hospital had impacted the rate of pre-referral US. METHODS: A select sample of hospital charts of children undergoing orchidopexy at a single tertiary paediatric urological referral centre between 2010 and 2019 were reviewed. Data regarding age at surgery, cryptorchidism diagnosis, type of referring physician, patient distance from institution, and evidence of US as part of diagnostic work-up were extracted. RESULTS: Five hundred charts were examined. Referring provider specialty impacted the number of US ordered (P=0.01). On subset analysis, paediatricians ordered fewer US for children with palpable UDT in 2014 (P=0.03). In 2018, community urologists ordered no US (P=0.02). These findings had temporal relationships with guideline release. The proportion of children undergoing US each year remained consistently between 50% and 62%, except in 2014, when only 36% had US. Distance from hospital and UDT diagnosis were of no significance. CONCLUSION: Despite clinical practice guidelines and Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations, significant numbers of children with UDT still undergo US. Transient changes in sub-specialty guideline adherence are observed. Strategies to improve sustained guideline awareness in referring clinicians need to be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".