AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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.

France1 site
  • CHITS

    Toulon, VAR, 83000

Other trials in France

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 groups in NCT06985914
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
CT scan patient cohortAdult 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.

  1. 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)
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  1. First posted22 May 2025
  2. Study start1 May 2025
  3. Primary completion22 May 2026
  4. Study completion22 May 2026

Resources

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)
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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in