Enhancing X-Ray Orders by Utilizing Proper Physical Examination and Applying Clinical Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many pediatric injuries can be diagnosed with one radiograph. Because of health care costs and radiation risks, provider prudence while ordering radiographs is crucial. Although clinical guidelines like Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) and Ottawa Knee Rules (OKR) exist, the decision to order radiographs often bypasses clinical judgment. The purpose of this study was to conduct a review of the radiographic practices of providers. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort of 179 pediatric patients with an extremity injury. Detailed chart review was performed on patients regarding demographics, HPI, physical exam, radiographs, and follow-up. Primary outcomes included radiographs and their relationship to the physical examination. Specifically, knee, ankle, and foot complaints were examined in relation to OAR and OKR. Predictor variables included age, sex, ordering provider, and location of presentation. RESULTS: At least one set of unnecessary radiographs was performed in 139 (86.3%) of 161 patients with documentation of physical examination. Decreased age was significantly associated with outcomes: unnecessary knee and foot radiographs per OAR and OKR, having completely negative radiographs, having unnecessary radiographs performed, and having zero radiographs indicated. Increased age was correlated with an increase in unnecessary radiographs ordered. Neither provider type nor location of triage showed significant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant number of patients that are not receiving a proper screening before radiographic orders. Providers should return to physical examination and the utilization of clinical guidelines to best serve their patients, while understanding some of the ways that age may negatively impact their habits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective diagnostic study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".