Table 3Studies excluded from the clinical review

StudyExclusion reason
Al wattar 20142Inappropriate comparison. No comparator
Arnaoutakis 20103No outcomes of interest
Berner 20034Incorrect interventions. Presence of an ‘opinion leader’
Burton 20165No relevant outcomes
Campbell 20146Incorrect interventions. Multivariate analysis with no analysis on radiology access
Carlos 20097Editorial
Chana 20168Systematic review
Cubeddu 20139Incorrect interventions. On-hours versus off-hours
Ebinger 201210Incorrect interventions. Access to mobile ambulance-based CT scanner
Hardy 201311Incorrect interventions. Immediate versus delayed reporting of radiology results
Jamal 201412Study design: diagnostic accuracy
Khoo 200713Study design: diagnostic accuracy
Langan 200214Inappropriate comparison. Comparison group had 24 hour radiology access
Miller 201215Technological evaluation
Moss 199216Study design: survey
Ng 200221Incorrect interventions. Early versus late CT scan
Notghi 199723Incorrect interventions. Retrospective theoretical intervention
Power 200724Incorrect interventions. Service reorganisation did not include change in radiology access
Raja 201225Inappropriate comparison. Comparison had 24 hour radiology access
Redd 201526Inappropriate comparison. Comparison had 24 hour radiology access

From: Chapter 22, 7-day diagnostic radiology

Cover of Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation
Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation.
NICE Guideline, No. 94.
National Guideline Centre (UK).
Copyright © NICE 2018.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.