ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance in the Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Delphi Consensus Proposal.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in fracture detection on radiographs: a literature review.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Development of Quality Indicators for the Ultrasound Department through a Modified Delphi Method.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Update of CT-Based Radiomics Applications in the Pre-Surgical Prediction of the Risk of Post-Operative Fistula, Resectability Status and Prognosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology-update 2023.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Structured reporting of computed tomography in the polytrauma patient assessment: a Delphi consensus proposal.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Risk Assessment and Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2023Review
- Structured Reporting in Radiological Settings: Pitfalls and Perspectives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Complications Risk Assessment and Imaging Findings of Thermal Ablation Treatment in Liver Cancers: What the Radiologist Should Expect.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Risk Assessment and Radiomics Analysis in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMN).Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR)-based reports in pancreatic adenocarcinoma during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams. MATERIALS AND
methodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the CT-SR and MRI-SR, assessing a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.
resultsThe final CT-SR version was built by including n = 16 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n = 11 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n = 7 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n = 18 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 52 items were included in the final version of the CT-SR. The final MRI-SR version was built by including n = 16 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n = 11 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n = 8 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n = 14 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 49 items were included in the final version of the MRI-SR. In the first round for CT-SR, all sections received more than a good rating. The overall mean score of the experts was 4.85. The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.85. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts was 4.87, and the Cα correlation coefficient was 0.94. In the first round, for MRI-SR, all sections received more than a good rating. The overall mean score of the experts was 4.73. The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.82. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts was 4.91, and the Cα correlation coefficient was 0.93.
conclusionsThe CT-SR and MRI-SR are based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise derived from the multidisciplinary agreement of expert radiologists in order to obtain more appropriate communication tools for referring physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.