Background: Inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources is a common problem, constituting 10–34% of health services spending in the western world. Even though diagnostic imaging is vital for identifying correct diagnoses and administrating the right treatment, low-value imaging—in which the diagnostic test confers little to no clinical benefit—is common and contributes to inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources. There is a lack of knowledge on the types and extent of low-value imaging. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and quantify the extent of low-value diagnostic imaging examinations for adults and children.Methods: A scoping review of the published literature was performed. Medline-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 2010 to September 2020. The search strategy was built from medical subject headings (Mesh) for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology OR Health service misuse/Medical overuse OR Procedures and Techniques Utilization/Facilities and Services Utilization. Articles in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian were included.Results: A total of 39,986 records were identified and, of these, 370 studies were included in the final synthesis. Eighty-four low-value imaging examinations were identified. Imaging of atraumatic pain, routine imaging in minor head injury, trauma, thrombosis, urolithiasis, after thoracic interventions, fracture follow-up and cancer staging/follow-up were the most frequently identified low-value imaging examinations. The proportion of low-value imaging varied between 2 and 100% inappropriate or unnecessary examinations.Conclusions: A comprehensive list of identified low-value radiological examinations for both adults and children are presented. Future research should focus on reasons for low-value imaging utilization and interventions to reduce the use of low-value imaging internationally.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020208072.

Background: It is estimated that 20–50% of all radiological examinations are of low value. Many attempts have been made to reduce the use of low-value imaging. However, the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value imaging is unclear. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview and evaluate the outcomes of interventions aimed at reducing low-value imaging. Methods: An electronic database search was completed in Medline – Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for citations between 2010 and 2020. The search was built from medical subject headings for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology, Health service misuse or medical overuse, and Health planning. Keywords were used for the concept of reduction and avoidance. Reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched for relevant citations. Only articles written in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and Swedish were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included articles. A narrative synthesis of the final included articles was completed. Results: The search identified 15,659 records. After abstract and full-text screening, 95 studies of varying quality were included in the final analysis, containing 45 studies found through hand-searching techniques. Both controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after studies, time series, chart reviews, and cohort studies were included. Most interventions were aimed at referring physicians. Clinical practice guidelines (n = 28) and education (n = 28) were most commonly evaluated interventions, either alone or in combination with other components. Multi-component interventions were often more effective than single-component interventions showing a reduction in the use of low-value imaging in 94 and 74% of the studies, respectively. The most addressed types of imaging were musculoskeletal (n = 26), neurological (n = 23) and vascular (n = 16) imaging. Seventy-seven studies reported reduced low-value imaging, while 3 studies reported an increase. Conclusions: Multi-component interventions that include education were often more effective than single-component interventions. The contextual and cultural factors in the health care systems seem to be vital for successful reduction of low-value imaging. Further research should focus on assessing the impact of the context in interventions reducing low-value imaging and how interventions can be adapted to different contexts.

Background: Assessing the quality of diagnostic images is subjective and influenced by factors such education, skills, and experience of the assessor. This study aims to explore the radiographers’ assessments of medical usefulness or rejection of X-ray images in specific cases. Results: Eighty-one radiographers from different countries responded to the questionnaire distributed online at the EFRS research HUB at ECR 2020 (a 15% response rate). Forty-two percent of the respondents practiced in the UK and Ireland. In addition to rejecting or keeping images in the presented 30 cases and giving a main reason for the images rejected, the participants explained their choice using comments, 1176 comments were obtained. Sixty percent of the comments were on kept images. The respondents kept on average 63% of the images. In the “Keep”, “Could keep”, and “Reject” categories on average 84%, 63% and 43% of images were kept respectively. The most common reasons given for rejecting an image were suboptimal positioning and centering. Potential diagnostic value and radiation protection were indicated as reasons to keep an image perceived as of low quality reported in n = 353 and n = 33 comments respectively. Conclusions: There is an agreement internationally on what makes a good quality X-ray image. However, the opinion on medical usefulness of images of low or poor quality compared to image criteria varies. Diagnostic capability and radiation protection was the rationale used for keeping images not fulfilling image criteria. There seems to be a need for diagnostic quality to be included in image assessment in clinical practice.

Background and Objective Imaging 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. Methods This 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. Results Of 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. Conclusions This 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.

Demographic changes are leading to an ageing population in Europe, and predict an increase in the number of nursing home residents over the next 30 years. Nursing home residents need specialised healthcare services such as radiology due to both chronic and acute illnesses. Mobile radiography, x-ray examinations performed in the nursing homes, may be a good way of providing services to this population. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the outcomes of mobile radiography services for nursing home residents and society. A systematic review based on searches in the Medline, Cochrane, PubMed, Embase and Svemed + databases was performed. Titles and abstracts were screened according to a predefined set of inclusion criteria: empirical studies in the geriatric population, and reports of mobile radiography services in a clinical setting. All publications were quality appraised using MMAT or CASP appraisal tools. Data were extracted using a summary table and results were narratively synthesised. Ten publications were included. Three overarching outcomes were identified: 1) reduced number of hospitalisations and outpatient examinations or treatments, 2) reduced number of transfers between nursing homes and hospitals and 3) increased access to x-ray examinations. These outcomes were interlinked with the more specific outcomes for residents and society reported in the literature. For residents there was a reduction in burdensome transfers and waiting time and adequate treatment and care increased. For society, released resources could be used more efficiently, and overall costs were reduced substantially. This review indicates that mobile radiography services for nursing home residents in the western world are of comparable quality to hospital-based examinations and have clear potential benefits. Mobile radiography reduced transfers to and from hospital, increased the number of examinations carried out and facilitated timely diagnosis and access to treatments. Further research is needed to formally evaluate potential improvements in care quality and cost-effectiveness.

This narrative review aims to present the concept of value in imaging and explore why we conduct low-value procedures, how to reduce this wasteful use, and what we could gain from reducing low-value imaging. Imaging of low value to the patient contributes to thousands of metric tons of CO₂ emissions, costing several billion US dollars annually. With a 20% reduction in low-value imaging, we would reduce the waste of resources related to 7.2 million procedures and, at the same time, reduce the risk of incidentalomas, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment and reduce wait times for patients in need of imaging services of high value. Multi-component initiatives targeting barriers in all levels of society and healthcare are needed to reduce low-value imaging. Radiographers are key actors in medical imaging and can make substantial contributions to this effort by, together with the radiologists, referrers, and managers, ensuring that all imaging procedures conducted are sustainable along four dimensions of sustainability: value, cost, risk, and environment. Efforts to secure sustainable imaging considering the four crucial dimensions (value, cost, radiation, and environment) should be made at all levels of society and healthcare, from governmental management to the individual healthcare worker. Radiographers are vital in obtaining sustainability to ensure only sustainable imaging procedures are conducted. When assessing the appropriateness of imaging procedures, we need to consider the environment, safety, effectiveness, and efficiency. To obtain this, we need a collective and coordinated effort locally, nationally, and internationally to deliver sustainable imaging services.