Table 2:
Multivariable Analysis of Factors Affecting Follow-Up Recommendations by Department
| Predictor | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Demographic Factors | ||
| Age, Years | 1.01 (1.01–1.01) | <0.01* |
| Women | Reference | |
| Men | 0.9 (0.9–1.0) | <0.01* |
| Radiologist Demographic Factors | ||
| Women | Reference | |
| Men | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) | 0.54 |
| Trainee, Absent | Reference | |
| Trainee, Present | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 0.45 |
| Unique Attending ID | <.01* | |
| Years in Practice | 0.49 | |
| 1–10 | Reference | |
| 11+ | 0.9 (0.6–1.3) | |
| Division | < 0.05* | |
| Neuroradiology | Reference | |
| Abdomen | 1.7 (1.0–2.8) | |
| Chest | 0.8 (0.4–1.4) | |
| Cancer Institute | 1.6 (0.9–2.8) | |
| Emergency Radiology | 1.5 (0.9–2.5) | |
| Musculoskeletal | 1.2 (0.7–2.1) | |
| Modality | <0.01* | |
| X-Ray | Reference | |
| Ultrasound | 1.2 (1.1–1.3) | |
| CT | 4.2 (4.0–4.4) | |
| MR | 3.2 (3.1–3.4) | |
*
Statistically significant; CI=Confidence Interval
The overall model explained 7.8% of the variation in follow-up recommendations, while Unique Attending ID (a number given to each individual radiologists) accounted for 4.7% of the variation in our model (goodness of fit p-value <0.03).