CT ScanIMA-URGNCT06985914
Retrospective Study of CT Scan Indications in Adult Emergency Departments
An observational study of CT Scan, run by Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Toulon La Seyne sur Mer at 1 site in France.
Trial summary
The use of CT scans has significantly improved the diagnosis of various pathologies in emergency departments. However, it is also associated with several drawbacks, including high costs and a proven carcinogenic risk to patients, depending on the dose of radiation received. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- CT Scan
- What is being tested?
- CT scan
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 858 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 1 May 2025to 22 May 2026
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received a CT scan during a visit to the emergency department of Hôpital Ste Musse during the period 01/01/2024 to 31/12/2024.
Who may be able to join
- Adults (> 18 years)
- CT scans performed in emergencies in 2024 at Hôpital Ste Musse -
Who cannot join
- CT scans performed outside the emergency department
- Patients managed through the neurovascular pathway
- Patients under protective supervision (e.g., guardianship or legal protection)
- Patients who refuse to participate in the research -
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Retrospective Study of CT Scan Indications in Adult Emergency Departments: Are They Justified and Aligned With Official Guidelines
The use of CT scans has significantly improved the diagnosis of various pathologies in emergency departments. However, it is also associated with several drawbacks, including high costs and a proven carcinogenic risk to patients, depending on the dose of radiation received. Furthermore, the ecological impact of this imaging modality should not be overlooked, as each CT scan generates approximately 2 kg of CO₂, contributing to global warming. These concerns underscore the importance of ensuring that CT scans are performed only when clinically justified.
This context motivated our study: a retrospective, descriptive analysis conducted in the emergency department of Sainte Musse Hospital over a 28-day period in 2024. The selected days are distributed to reflect an equivalent representation of weekdays, weekends, and public holidays, as well as seasonal variations.
Read more
Our primary objective is to calculate the proportion of CT scans that were appropriately justified. The investigators will assess three key metrics:
- The rate of CT scans justified based on official clinical guidelines.
- The rate of CT scans justified by a change in patient management.
- The rate of CT scans performed at the request of a specialist consulted during the emergency department visit.
The ultimate aim of our study is to evaluate the extent of potential overuse of CT scans in the emergency setting and, if applicable, to raise awareness among emergency physicians regarding the importance of balancing clinical benefit against potential risks for the patient.
Read the detailed description
CT scans are widely used in modern emergency departments, facilitating the diagnosis of both urgent and non-urgent conditions. However, a noticeable increase in the use of imaging-particularly CT scans-has been observed in recent years. This trend can be attributed to several factors, including technological advancements that have made imaging more accessible, as well as a rising number of patients presenting to emergency departments.
Nevertheless, studies have raised concerns about the appropriateness of this increase. Notably, Keith E. Kocher et al. reported that between 1996 and 2007, the number of emergency department visits in a U.S. hospital increased by 30%, while the number of CT scans performed rose by an astonishing 330% over the same period. This disproportionate rise raises questions about the justification of many of these examinations, especially considering the potential consequences-ranging from increased healthcare costs and radiation exposure to environmental impact.
Imaging examinations such as CT scans are associated with significant costs and expose patients to ionizing radiation. It has been demonstrated that CT-related radiation is linked to an increased risk of cancer, particularly with high or cumulative doses, thereby posing a public health concern. In addition, the environmental impact of CT imaging should not be overlooked: each scan generates approximately 2 kg of CO₂, contributing to global warming. These concerns highlight the importance of using CT scans judiciously and minimizing unjustified imaging whenever possible, in order to limit both medical and ecological consequences.
At the international level, several studies have highlighted significant variability in the rate of unjustified CT scans. For example, Heljä Oikarinen et al. (2009) reported that in a Swedish hospital radiology department, 77% of lumbar spine CT scans, 36% of brain CT scans, and 37% of abdominal CT scans were unjustified in patients under the age of 35. More recently, Andreas Sakkas et al. (2023) found that 37.8% of brain CT scans performed for head trauma in a German maxillofacial surgery department were unjustified. In contrast, Aleksandra Sobiecka et al. (2019) reported a much lower rate-only 6.54% of CT and MRI scans were deemed unjustified-across two radiology departments in Poland.
These divergent findings from country to country underscore the complexity of assessing imaging appropriateness and highlight the need for local evaluations. Given the public health implications in France-including healthcare costs and radiation exposure-as well as the global environmental impact of medical imaging, the investigators have undertaken a retrospective observational study in the adult emergency department of Hôpital Sainte Musse. The objective is to assess the justification of CT scans prescribed in this setting. More specifically, the investigators aim to calculate the proportion of CT scans that are justified either by adherence to official clinical guidelines or by a subsequent change in patient management resulting from the imaging findings.
Keith E. Kocher et al. have shown that the overuse of imaging tests in emergency departments may be associated with a reduction in hospital admissions. In light of this, the investigators have defined secondary objectives in our study: to assess the proportion of CT scans justified by adherence to official clinical guidelines and the proportion justified by a change in patient management. For the latter, the investigators will characterize the nature of the management change, such as the initiation of appropriate treatment or a modification in patient disposition (e.g., discharge home, arrangement of outpatient follow-up, hospital admission, and transfer to another facility, or referral to the operating room).
Additionally, the investigators have observed that a portion of CT scans performed in the emergency department are ordered at the request of specialists consulted during the patient's visit. These specialists may prefer to request imaging through the emergency department due to limited access to imaging resources in inpatient units, thereby avoiding delays in patient care. Consequently, they will also calculate the rate of justified CT scans ordered by specialists but performed within the emergency department.
- Conditions
- CT Scan
- Being tested
- CT scan
- Keywords
- CT Scan, Recommandations, Emergency, patent management
- Medical subject headings
- Emergencies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
CT scanProcedure or surgery
CT scan in the emergency department
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| CT scan patient cohort | Adult patient who received a CT scan in the emergency department in 2024 Receives: Procedure: CT scan |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
rate of justified CT scans performed in adult emergency settings
The rate of justified emergency CT scans is defined as the proportion of CT scans performed in the adult emergency department that are either compliant with the recommendations of the Société Française de Réanimation (SFR) and/or have had a documented impact on patient management, relative to the total number of CT scans performed during a randomly selected sample of 28 days over a one-year period.
Measured: up to 12 months
Secondary outcomes (3)
Evaluate the rate of justified emergency CT scans according to official recommendations.
The rate of justified emergency CT scans is defined as the proportion of CT scans performed in the emergency department that are assessed as compliant with official recommendations, relative to the total number of CT scans performed in the emergency department.
Measured: up to 12 months
Evaluate the rate of emergency CT scans assessed as having had an impact on patient management
The rate of justified emergency CT scans is defined as the proportion of CT scans performed in the emergency department that are assessed as having had an impact on patient management-whether therapeutic and/or related to patient referral-relative to the total number of CT scans performed in the emergency department.
Measured: up to 12 months
evaluate the rate of emergency CT scans, requested by specialists
The percentage of CT scans requested by specialists-categorized by specialty-that are justified, either by conformity with official recommendations and/or by having had a documented impact on patient management.
Measured: up to 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 May 2025
- Study start1 May 2025
- Primary completion22 May 2026
- Study completion22 May 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for CT ScanStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 858 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Toulon La Seyne sur Mer
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Tiziana Platino, MD, Study director, CHITS
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06985914
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2025-CHITS-009
- Acronym
- IMA-URG
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 15 May 2025
- Last updated
- 7 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Retrospective Study of CT Scan Indications in Adult Emergency Departments: Are They Justified and Aligned With Official Guidelines
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06985914
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IMA-URG / 2025-CHITS-009
- Conditions
- CT Scan
- Keywords
- CT Scan, Recommandations, Emergency, patent management
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 858 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Toulon La Seyne sur MerUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 May 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 22 May 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 22 May 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 May 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The use of CT scans has significantly improved the diagnosis of various pathologies in emergency departments. However, it is also associated with several drawbacks, including high costs and a proven carcinogenic risk to patients, depending on the dose of radiation received. Furthermore, the ecological impact of this imaging modality should not be overlooked, as each CT scan generates approximately 2 kg of CO₂, contributing to global warming. These concerns underscore the importance of ensuring that CT scans are performed only when clinically justified.
This context motivated our study: a retrospective, descriptive analysis conducted in the emergency department of Sainte Musse Hospital over a 28-day period in 2024. The selected days are distributed to reflect an equivalent representation of weekdays, weekends, and public holidays, as well as seasonal variations.
Our primary objective is to calculate the proportion of CT scans that were appropriately justified. The investigators will assess three key metrics:
- The rate of CT scans justified based on official clinical guidelines.
- The rate of CT scans justified by a change in patient management.
- The rate of CT scans performed at the request of a specialist consulted during the emergency department visit.
The ultimate aim of our study is to evaluate the extent of potential overuse of CT scans in the emergency setting and, if applicable, to raise awareness among emergency physicians regarding the importance of balancing clinical benefit against potential risks for the patient.
Detailed description
CT scans are widely used in modern emergency departments, facilitating the diagnosis of both urgent and non-urgent conditions. However, a noticeable increase in the use of imaging-particularly CT scans-has been observed in recent years. This trend can be attributed to several factors, including technological advancements that have made imaging more accessible, as well as a rising number of patients presenting to emergency departments.
Nevertheless, studies have raised concerns about the appropriateness of this increase. Notably, Keith E. Kocher et al. reported that between 1996 and 2007, the number of emergency department visits in a U.S. hospital increased by 30%, while the number of CT scans performed rose by an astonishing 330% over the same period. This disproportionate rise raises questions about the justification of many of these examinations, especially considering the potential consequences-ranging from increased healthcare costs and radiation exposure to environmental impact.
Imaging examinations such as CT scans are associated with significant costs and expose patients to ionizing radiation. It has been demonstrated that CT-related radiation is linked to an increased risk of cancer, particularly with high or cumulative doses, thereby posing a public health concern. In addition, the environmental impact of CT imaging should not be overlooked: each scan generates approximately 2 kg of CO₂, contributing to global warming. These concerns highlight the importance of using CT scans judiciously and minimizing unjustified imaging whenever possible, in order to limit both medical and ecological consequences.
At the international level, several studies have highlighted significant variability in the rate of unjustified CT scans. For example, Heljä Oikarinen et al. (2009) reported that in a Swedish hospital radiology department, 77% of lumbar spine CT scans, 36% of brain CT scans, and 37% of abdominal CT scans were unjustified in patients under the age of 35. More recently, Andreas Sakkas et al. (2023) found that 37.8% of brain CT scans performed for head trauma in a German maxillofacial surgery department were unjustified. In contrast, Aleksandra Sobiecka et al. (2019) reported a much lower rate-only 6.54% of CT and MRI scans were deemed unjustified-across two radiology departments in Poland.
These divergent findings from country to country underscore the complexity of assessing imaging appropriateness and highlight the need for local evaluations. Given the public health implications in France-including healthcare costs and radiation exposure-as well as the global environmental impact of medical imaging, the investigators have undertaken a retrospective observational study in the adult emergency department of Hôpital Sainte Musse. The objective is to assess the justification of CT scans prescribed in this setting. More specifically, the investigators aim to calculate the proportion of CT scans that are justified either by adherence to official clinical guidelines or by a subsequent change in patient management resulting from the imaging findings.
Keith E. Kocher et al. have shown that the overuse of imaging tests in emergency departments may be associated with a reduction in hospital admissions. In light of this, the investigators have defined secondary objectives in our study: to assess the proportion of CT scans justified by adherence to official clinical guidelines and the proportion justified by a change in patient management. For the latter, the investigators will characterize the nature of the management change, such as the initiation of appropriate treatment or a modification in patient disposition (e.g., discharge home, arrangement of outpatient follow-up, hospital admission, and transfer to another facility, or referral to the operating room).
Additionally, the investigators have observed that a portion of CT scans performed in the emergency department are ordered at the request of specialists consulted during the patient's visit. These specialists may prefer to request imaging through the emergency department due to limited access to imaging resources in inpatient units, thereby avoiding delays in patient care. Consequently, they will also calculate the rate of justified CT scans ordered by specialists but performed within the emergency department.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| CT scan patient cohort | – | Procedure: CT scanAdult patient who received a CT scan in the emergency department in 2024 |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received a CT scan during a visit to the emergency department of Hôpital Ste Musse during the period 01/01/2024 to 31/12/2024.
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Adults (> 18 years)
- CT scans performed in emergencies in 2024 at Hôpital Ste Musse -
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- CT scans performed outside the emergency department
- Patients managed through the neurovascular pathway
- Patients under protective supervision (e.g., guardianship or legal protection)
- Patients who refuse to participate in the research -
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| CT scanCT scan in the emergency department | Procedure or surgery | CT scan patient cohort |
Primary outcome
rate of justified CT scans performed in adult emergency settings
Time frame: up to 12 months
The rate of justified emergency CT scans is defined as the proportion of CT scans performed in the adult emergency department that are either compliant with the recommendations of the Société Française de Réanimation (SFR) and/or have had a documented impact on patient management, relative to the total number of CT scans performed during a randomly selected sample of 28 days over a one-year period.
3 secondary outcomes
Evaluate the rate of justified emergency CT scans according to official recommendations.
Time frame: up to 12 months
Evaluate the rate of emergency CT scans assessed as having had an impact on patient management
Time frame: up to 12 months
evaluate the rate of emergency CT scans, requested by specialists
Time frame: up to 12 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Jul 2026.
Related trials for CT Scan
Active, not recruiting
CT for Personalized Mechanical Ventilation
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury, Sepsis Syndrome
Not yet recruiting
Medico-Economic Evaluation of MRI Versus CT as Diagnostic Imaging Strategies in Patients With Suspected Ischemic Stroke: the MAGRITTE Study.
Stroke
Recruiting
Randomized Prospective Trial on the Cost-Effectiveness of Photon-Counting CT Versus Energy-Integrating Detector CT in Suspected Chronic Coronary Syndrome
Computed Tomography Angiography, Coronary Artery Disease
Enrolling by invitation
The DANE-HEART Trial - Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Primary Prevention
Coronary Atherosclerosis and Other Heart Disease, Cardiovascular Diseases
RecruitingObservational study
Cardiovascular Risk Assessment For Kidney Transplantation - Utility of Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography in the Assessment of Patients Awaiting Kidney Transplantation
Cardiovascular Diseases, Kidney Transplant; Complications
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Tiziana Platino, MD study director
CHITS
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of CT Scan, run by Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Toulon La Seyne sur Mer at 1 site in France.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
rate of justified CT scans performed in adult emergency settings (time frame: up to 12 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Jul 2026.