Tuesday, November 29 | 9:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. | T3-SSNPM02-4 | Room E352
Is utilization of CT -- as well as MRI and ultrasound -- appropriate in the emergency department? It could be better, Stanford researchers say.Even though evidence-based guidelines for appropriate advanced imaging use are widely available, the rate of inappropriate imaging referrals is still high; 60% of inappropriate imaging tests are returning normal results, presenter Dr. Stephan Altmayer, PhD, and colleagues found.
The group reviewed 330 each of CT, ultrasound, and MRI exams from patients who presented in the emergency department between January and March 2018. The parameters of the analysis were a prevalence of inappropriate orders of 30% with a margin of error of 5%. Two radiologists used the American College of Radiology's (ACR) guidelines to come to consensus about whether an exam was appropriate or not; the final imaging report was compared with the exam's initial order using the following categories: "normal," "compatible with initial diagnosis," "alternative diagnosis," or "inconclusive."
Altmayer and colleagues found the following rates of inappropriate orders: CT, 29.1%; MRI, 33.3%; and ultrasound, 59.4%. The study showed that inappropriately ordered tests were more likely to show no abnormalities compared with appropriate referrals:
- CT: 62.5% (inappropriate referral) versus 34.2% (appropriate referral)
- MRI: 61.8% (inappropriate referral) versus 38.7% (appropriate referral)
- Ultrasound: 65.8% (inappropriate referral) versus 38.8% (appropriate referral)
It also showed that the final reports of appropriate referrals were significantly more likely to be compatible with the initial diagnosis compared with inappropriate tests.
- CT: 46.6% (appropriate) versus 14.6% (inappropriate)
- MRI: 56.3% (appropriate) versus 21.8% (inappropriate)
- Ultrasound: 45.5% (appropriate) versus 14.3% (inappropriate)
"More than 60% of the inappropriate tests were normal for all modalities, while around 50% of appropriate orders had findings compatible with the initial clinical suspicion," the group concluded. "This highlights the impact that correct exam selection has on finding confirmative or actionable results on imaging."
Attend this Tuesday scientific presentation to get all of the details.












![Axial images from unenhanced calcium score cardiac CT (left) and curved planar reformation images from CT angiography (right) show that higher long-term exposure to air pollution is associated with greater coronary artery calcium and more obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Top row: Images in a 68-year-old male patient with higher 10-year mean ambient air pollution exposure (7.9 μg/m3 for particulate matter measuring ≤2.5 μm in diameter [PM2.5] and 17.4 parts per billion [ppb] for NO2) with extensive CAD (coronary artery calcium score [CACS] >1,000 and obstructive CAD [≥70% diameter stenosis]). Bottom row: Images in a 57-year-old female patient with lower 10-year mean ambient air pollution exposure (6.3 μg/m3 for PM2.5 and 4.6 ppb for NO2) with no CAD (CACS = 0 and no obstructive stenosis).](https://img.auntminnie.com/mindful/smg/workspaces/default/uploads/2026/06/hanneman.r6SMLzkezo.png?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=crop&h=112&q=70&w=112)








