Table 3, Studies excluded from the clinical review - Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation

Study	Exclusion reason
Apthorp 1998 ¹	Incorrect interventions. MRI not in protocol
Benamore 2005 ²	Incorrect interventions. CT not in protocol
Blois 2012³	Incorrect comparison (GP screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm versus ultrasound technician)
Bui 2004⁴	1/3 of population under 16 years old.
Bury 1987⁵	Narrative paper
Carey 1989⁶	No outcomes of interest
Castro 2007⁷	Incorrect interventions (retinal digital images)
Chan 1999⁸	Inappropriate comparison
Chaptini 2010⁹	Incorrect interventions (ambulatory cardiac single-photon emission computed tomography)
Collie 1999 ¹⁰	Incorrect interventions. MRI not in protocol
Detar 1960¹¹	Qualitative study
Duncan 2005¹²	Not a comparative study
Durham 1999¹³	Not a comparative study
Farrell 1977¹⁴	Not a comparative study
Fassiadis 2005¹⁵	Incorrect interventions (screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm)
Frohwein 2001¹⁶	Narrative paper
Geary 2007¹⁷	Not review population
Gravil 1998¹⁸	Incorrect comparison (treated in hospital versus treated at home)
Guldbrandt 2015¹⁹	Incorrect population (lung cancer patients)
Haber 1978²⁰	Narrative paper
Hahn 1988²¹	Narrative paper
Halvorsen 1989²²	Incorrect comparison (GP versus radiologist interpretation)
Hammond 2000²³	Narrative
Hawksworth 1951²⁴	Case series
Howard 2005 ²⁵	Incorrect interventions. Neuroimaging not in protocol
Hussain 1999²⁷	Incorrect comparison (comparing images sent via differing transition methods)
Hussain 2004²⁶	No outcomes of interest
Ingeman 2015²⁸	No outcomes of interest
Katerndahl 1982²⁹	Narrative
Kiuru 2002³⁰	Incorrect comparison (GP sending some x-rays to hospital for interpretation versus sending all).
Kuritzky 1987³¹	Incorrect interventions (interpretation of x-rays by GP versus radiologist)
Laerum 2001³²	Narrative
Lahde 2002³³	Not an intervention study
Laine 1998³⁴	Incorrect comparison (comparing ultrasound, clinical exam and radiography)
Laws 2006³⁵	Not a comparative study. No outcomes of interest.
Leiro-fernandez 2014³⁶	Incorrect interventions (system to alert pulmonologists of lung cancer suspicion)
Li 1999³⁷	Incorrect interventions (screening for glaucoma)
Li 2011³⁸	Incorrect interventions (ocular telehealth)
Maurin 2014³⁹	Not review population
Mclain 1985⁴⁰	Inappropriate comparison (GP versus radiologist interpretation)
Merrington 1981⁴¹	Narrative
Miller 2006⁴²	Not a comparative study
Mjolstad 2012⁴³	Inappropriate comparison
Morioka 2007⁴⁴	No outcomes of interest
Olayiwola 2011⁴⁵	Incorrect interventions
Osmond 1977⁴⁶	Narrative
Oswald 1964⁴⁷	Narrative
Oswald 1964⁴⁸	Narrative
Paakkala 1988⁴⁹	Inappropriate comparison (GP versus radiologist interpretation)
Pavlicek 1999⁵⁰	No outcomes of interest
Pickhardt 2006⁵¹	Not a comparative study
Qureshi 2001⁵²	Does not match protocol (diagnostic accuracy of Doppler ultrasound)
Rawson 1965⁵³	Inappropriate comparison (GP versus hospital clinician)
Redmond 2013⁵⁴	Inappropriate comparison (GP versus radiologist interpretation)
Rogers 2010⁵⁵	Narrative paper
Romero-aroca 2010⁵⁶	Incorrect interventions (screening for retinopathy)
Smith 1993⁵⁷	Not a comparative study
Speets 2006⁵⁸	Not a comparative study
Stoddart 1989⁵⁹	Not a comparative study
Strasser 1987A⁶⁰	Unclear when results were received by the GP for control group.
Suramo 2002⁶¹	Incorrect interventions (accuracy of ultrasound scans performed by GPs)
Taylor 2007⁶²	Incorrect interventions (retinopathy screening)
Thomas 2010 ⁶³	Incorrect interventions. CT not in protocol
Verstraete 2008⁶⁴	Incorrect interventions (MRI)
Yates 2016⁷⁰	Incorrect comparison (access versus no access)
Waite 2006⁶⁵	Incorrect interventions (CT)
Weiner 2005⁶⁶	Inappropriate comparison
Whitfield 1973⁶⁷	No outcomes of interest
Wilson 2005⁶⁸	Incorrect interventions (retinal imaging)
Wordsworth 2002⁶⁹	No outcomes of interest

Study

Exclusion reason

Apthorp 1998 ¹

Incorrect interventions. MRI not in protocol

Benamore 2005 ²

Incorrect interventions. CT not in protocol

Blois 2012³

Incorrect comparison (GP screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm versus ultrasound technician)

Bui 2004⁴

1/3 of population under 16 years old.

Bury 1987⁵

Narrative paper

Carey 1989⁶

No outcomes of interest

Castro 2007⁷

Incorrect interventions (retinal digital images)

Chan 1999⁸

Inappropriate comparison

Chaptini 2010⁹

Incorrect interventions (ambulatory cardiac single-photon emission computed tomography)

Collie 1999 ¹⁰

Incorrect interventions. MRI not in protocol

Detar 1960¹¹

Qualitative study

Duncan 2005¹²

Not a comparative study

Durham 1999¹³

Not a comparative study

Farrell 1977¹⁴

Not a comparative study

Fassiadis 2005¹⁵

Incorrect interventions (screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm)

Frohwein 2001¹⁶

Narrative paper

Geary 2007¹⁷

Not review population

Gravil 1998¹⁸

Incorrect comparison (treated in hospital versus treated at home)

Guldbrandt 2015¹⁹

Incorrect population (lung cancer patients)

Haber 1978²⁰

Narrative paper

Hahn 1988²¹

Narrative paper

Halvorsen 1989²²

Incorrect comparison (GP versus radiologist interpretation)

Hammond 2000²³

Narrative

Hawksworth 1951²⁴

Case series

Howard 2005 ²⁵

Incorrect interventions. Neuroimaging not in protocol

Hussain 1999²⁷

Incorrect comparison (comparing images sent via differing transition methods)

Hussain 2004²⁶

No outcomes of interest

Ingeman 2015²⁸

No outcomes of interest

Katerndahl 1982²⁹

Narrative

Kiuru 2002³⁰

Incorrect comparison (GP sending some x-rays to hospital for interpretation versus sending all).

Kuritzky 1987³¹

Incorrect interventions (interpretation of x-rays by GP versus radiologist)

Laerum 2001³²

Narrative

Lahde 2002³³

Not an intervention study

Laine 1998³⁴

Incorrect comparison (comparing ultrasound, clinical exam and radiography)

Laws 2006³⁵

Not a comparative study. No outcomes of interest.

Leiro-fernandez 2014³⁶

Incorrect interventions (system to alert pulmonologists of lung cancer suspicion)

Li 1999³⁷

Incorrect interventions (screening for glaucoma)

Li 2011³⁸

Incorrect interventions (ocular telehealth)

Maurin 2014³⁹

Not review population

Mclain 1985⁴⁰

Inappropriate comparison (GP versus radiologist interpretation)

Merrington 1981⁴¹

Narrative

Miller 2006⁴²

Not a comparative study

Mjolstad 2012⁴³

Inappropriate comparison

Morioka 2007⁴⁴

No outcomes of interest

Olayiwola 2011⁴⁵

Incorrect interventions

Osmond 1977⁴⁶

Narrative

Oswald 1964⁴⁷

Narrative

Oswald 1964⁴⁸

Narrative

Paakkala 1988⁴⁹

Inappropriate comparison (GP versus radiologist interpretation)

Pavlicek 1999⁵⁰

No outcomes of interest

Pickhardt 2006⁵¹

Not a comparative study

Qureshi 2001⁵²

Does not match protocol (diagnostic accuracy of Doppler ultrasound)

Rawson 1965⁵³

Inappropriate comparison (GP versus hospital clinician)

Redmond 2013⁵⁴

Inappropriate comparison (GP versus radiologist interpretation)

Rogers 2010⁵⁵

Narrative paper

Romero-aroca 2010⁵⁶

Incorrect interventions (screening for retinopathy)

Smith 1993⁵⁷

Not a comparative study

Speets 2006⁵⁸

Not a comparative study

Stoddart 1989⁵⁹

Not a comparative study

Strasser 1987A⁶⁰

Unclear when results were received by the GP for control group.

Suramo 2002⁶¹

Incorrect interventions (accuracy of ultrasound scans performed by GPs)

Taylor 2007⁶²

Incorrect interventions (retinopathy screening)

Thomas 2010 ⁶³

Incorrect interventions. CT not in protocol

Verstraete 2008⁶⁴

Incorrect interventions (MRI)

Yates 2016⁷⁰

Incorrect comparison (access versus no access)

Waite 2006⁶⁵

Incorrect interventions (CT)

Weiner 2005⁶⁶

Inappropriate comparison

Whitfield 1973⁶⁷

No outcomes of interest

Wilson 2005⁶⁸

Incorrect interventions (retinal imaging)

Wordsworth 2002⁶⁹

No outcomes of interest

From: Chapter 8, GP access to radiology

Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation.

NICE Guideline, No. 94.

National Guideline Centre (UK).

London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2018 Mar.

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

Table 3Studies excluded from the clinical review