Safwan Halabi, MD

  • Safwan Safar Halabi



Work and Education

Professional Education

University of Toledo College of Medicine, Toledo, OH, 6/1/2001


Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 6/30/2002


Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, 6/30/2006


Cincinnati Childrens Hospital and Medical Center Radiology Fellowships, Cincinnati, OH, 6/30/2007

Board Certifications

Clinical Informatics, American Board of Preventive Medicine

Pediatric Radiology, American Board of Radiology

Radiology, American Board of Radiology



All Publications

Evaluating the Effect of Unstructured Clinical Information on Clinical Decision Support Appropriateness Ratings. Journal of the American College of Radiology Moriarity, A. K., Green, A., Klochko, C., O'Brien, M., Halabi, S. 2017; 14 (6): 737-743


To determine the appropriateness rating (AR) of advanced inpatient imaging requests that were not rated by prospective, point-of-care clinical decision support (CDS) using computerized provider order entry.During 30-day baseline and intervention periods, CDS generated an AR for advanced inpatient imaging requests (nuclear medicine, CT, and MRI) using provider-selected structured indications from pull-down menus in the computerized provider order entry portal. The AR was only displayed during the intervention, and providers were required to acknowledge the AR to finalize the request. Subsequently, the unstructured free text information accompanying all requests was reviewed, and the AR was revised when possible. The percentage of unrated requests and the overall AR, before and after radiologist review, were compared between periods and by provider type.CDS software prospectively generated an AR for only 25.4% and 28.4% of baseline and intervention imaging requests, respectively; however, radiologist review generated an AR for 82.4% and 93.6% of the same requests. During the respective periods, the percentage of baseline and intervention imaging requests considered appropriate was 18.7% and 22.9% by prospective CDS software rating and increased to 82.4% and 88.7% with radiologist review.Despite limited effective use of CDS software, the percentage of requests containing additional, relevant clinical information increased, and the majority of requests had overall high appropriateness when reviewed by a radiologist. Additional work is needed to improve the amount and quality of clinical information available to CDS software and to facilitate the entry of this information by appropriate end users.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.003

View details for PubMedID 28434848

Concierge and Second-Opinion Radiology: Review of Current Practices. Current problems in diagnostic radiology Shaikh, S., Bafana, R., Halabi, S. S. 2016; 45 (2): 111-114


Radiology's core assets include the production, interpretation, and distribution of quality imaging studies. Second-opinion services and concierge practices in radiology aim to augment traditional services by providing patient-centered and physician-centered care, respectively. Patient centeredness enhances patients' understanding and comfort with their radiology tests and procedures and allows them to make better decisions about their health care. As the fee-for-service paradigm shifts to value-based care models, radiology practices have begun to diversify imaging service delivery and communication to coincide with the American College of Radiology Imaging 3.0 campaign. Physician-centered consultation allows for communication of evidence-based guidelines to assist referring physicians and other providers in making the most appropriate imaging or treatment decision for a specific clinical condition. There are disparate practice models and payment schema for the various second-opinion and concierge practices. This review article explores the current state and payment models of second-opinion and concierge practices in radiology. This review also includes a discussion on the benefits, roadblocks, and ethical issues that surround these novel types of practices.

View details for DOI 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.07.011

View details for PubMedID 26305521

Systematic Literature Review of Imaging Features of Spinal Degeneration in Asymptomatic Populations AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY Brinjikji, W., Luetmer, P. H., Comstock, B., Bresnahan, B. W., Chen, L. E., Deyo, R. A., Halabi, S., Turner, J. A., Avins, A. L., James, K., Wald, J. T., Kallmes, D. F., Jarvik, J. G. 2015; 36 (4): 811-816


Degenerative changes are commonly found in spine imaging but often occur in pain-free individuals as well as those with back pain. We sought to estimate the prevalence, by age, of common degenerative spine conditions by performing a systematic review studying the prevalence of spine degeneration on imaging in asymptomatic individuals.We performed a systematic review of articles reporting the prevalence of imaging findings (CT or MR imaging) in asymptomatic individuals from published English literature through April 2014. Two reviewers evaluated each manuscript. We selected age groupings by decade (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 years), determining age-specific prevalence estimates. For each imaging finding, we fit a generalized linear mixed-effects model for the age-specific prevalence estimate clustering in the study, adjusting for the midpoint of the reported age interval.Thirty-three articles reporting imaging findings for 3110 asymptomatic individuals met our study inclusion criteria. The prevalence of disk degeneration in asymptomatic individuals increased from 37% of 20-year-old individuals to 96% of 80-year-old individuals. Disk bulge prevalence increased from 30% of those 20 years of age to 84% of those 80 years of age. Disk protrusion prevalence increased from 29% of those 20 years of age to 43% of those 80 years of age. The prevalence of annular fissure increased from 19% of those 20 years of age to 29% of those 80 years of age.Imaging findings of spine degeneration are present in high proportions of asymptomatic individuals, increasing with age. Many imaging-based degenerative features are likely part of normal aging and unassociated with pain. These imaging findings must be interpreted in the context of the patient's clinical condition.

View details for DOI 10.3174/ajnr.A4173

View details for Web of Science ID 000352512400038

View details for PubMedID 25430861

The Effect of Clinical Decision Support for Advanced Inpatient Imaging JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY Moriarity, A. K., Klochko, C., O'Brien, M., Halabi, S. 2015; 12 (4): 358-363


To examine the effect of integrating point-of-care clinical decision support (CDS) using the ACR Appropriateness Criteria (AC) into an inpatient computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system for advanced imaging requests.Over 12 months, inpatient CPOE requests for nuclear medicine, CT, and MRI were processed by CDS to generate an AC score using provider-selected data from pull-down menus. During the second 6-month period, AC scores were displayed to ordering providers, and acknowledgement was required to finalize a request. Request AC scores and percentages of requests not scored by CDS were compared among primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, and by years in practice of the responsible physician of record.CDS prospectively generated a score for 26.0% and 30.3% of baseline and intervention requests, respectively. The average AC score increased slightly for all requests (7.2 1.6 versus 7.4 1.5; P < .001), for PCPs (6.9 1.9 versus 7.4 1.6; P < .001), and minimally for specialists (7.3 1.6 versus 7.4 1.5; P < .001). The percentage of requests lacking sufficient structured clinical information to generate an AC score decreased for all requests (73.1% versus 68.9%; P < .001), for PCPs (78.0% versus 71.7%; P < .001), and for specialists (72.9% versus 69.1%; P < .001).Integrating CDS into inpatient CPOE slightly increased the overall AC score of advanced imaging requests as well as the provision of sufficient structured data to automatically generate AC scores. Both effects were more pronounced in PCPs compared with specialists.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.11.013

View details for Web of Science ID 000352181000011

View details for PubMedID 25622766

Improving the Application of Imaging Clinical Decision Support Tools: Making the Complex Simple JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY Broder, J. S., Halabi, S. S. 2014; 11 (3): 257-261


With the promotion and incentivization of electronic health records and computerized order entry by CMS, there is a unique opportunity to catalyze the use of evidence-based guidelines with the inclusion of clinical decision support (CDS) tools. Imaging CDS tools have evolved from static paper algorithms, checklists, and scores to interactive systems that provide feedback and recommendations with the intent of directing health care providers to deliver best practices. Some of the major limitations of first generation imaging CDS tools include a lack of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines, limited ability to input detailed patient conditions and symptoms, and time-intensive user interfaces. Next-generation imaging CDS tools will attempt to close the information and interface gaps to provide more meaningful guidance to health care providers and improve the delivery of best practices to patients.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.10.007

View details for Web of Science ID 000332354800015

View details for PubMedID 24589400