ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Implementation of structured radiology reporting and its associated accuracy in comparison to pancreas multi-disciplinary clinic expert radiology review.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Navigating pelvic anatomy for exenteration: a clinical guide for radiologists.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the feasibility of implementation of structured reporting in the setting of a high-volume pancreatic multidisciplinary clinic (PMDC) and to assess its value by comparing the accuracy of structured reports with expert imaging reviews.
methodsA single institutional prospective cohort study was conducted during March 2022 to May 2024 to understand the feasibility of implementation of structured reporting (SR) for all patients who were seen in our weekly PMDC. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed to find an association between SR and difference in vascular involvement of the primary pancreatic tumor between the radiology report and expert radiologist review (gold standard) during PMDC.
resultsAmong 466 patients seen in the PMDC, 426 (91.4%) had reports generated prior to PMDC. Of this, 294 reports met the inclusion criteria. The usage of SR increased from 58.3% in Mar 2022 to 87.8% in June 2024. Majority of the reports that used SR (n = 226, 76.9%), were performed for initial staging (n = 197, 67.0%) of PC. The median years of experience of reading radiologists that used non-SR was 14 (IQR: 8-27) years, while it was 9 (IQR - 9-15) years for those who used SR (p = 0.030). Of note, as compared to the radiology report, increased vascular involvement was noted in PMDC review 62.5% (20 out of 32) of the time with non-SRs, whereas increased vascular involvement during PMDC review was noted in only 36.6% (48 out of 132) of the time with SRs. On multivariable analysis, using SR lowered the odds of increase in vascular involvement during PMDC review by 0.29 times (95CIs 0.11-0.79; p = 0.015).
conclusionSR is feasible and superior to the free-text reporting with respect to the accuracy of peri-pancreatic vascular involvement. While its use cannot replace the PMDC radiology review, it can nonetheless be an indispensable tool in clinical management, particularly in a non-PMDC setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39532733What 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.