Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39545980›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

The impact of different radiology report formats on patient information processing: a systematic review.

F A M van der Mee, R P G Ottenheijm, E G S Gentry, J M Nobel, F M Zijta, J W L Cals, J Jansen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Structured reporting in knee MRI.Skeletal radiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Cancer Education in the Era of Immediate Results Access.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

F A M van der MeeDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. frederieke.vandermee@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4894-119X
R P G OttenheijmDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
E G S GentryDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J M NobelDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
F M ZijtaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J W L CalsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J JansenDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

partnership between Care Research Netherlands and the Medical Sciences domain of the Dutch Research Council (Dutch abbreviation ZonMW) 08391052120002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince radiology reports are primarily written for health professionals, patients may experience difficulties understanding jargon and terminology used, leading to anxiety and confusion.

objectivesThis review evaluates the impact of different radiology report formats on outcomes related to patient information processing, including perception, decision (behavioral intention), action (actual health behavior), and memory (recall of information).

methodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PsycInfo were searched for relevant qualitative and quantitative articles describing or comparing ways of presenting diagnostic radiology reports to patients. Two reviewers independently screened for relevant articles and extracted data from those included. The quality of articles was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

resultsEighteen studies, two qualitative and sixteen quantitative, were included. Sixteen studies compared multiple presentation formats, most frequently traditional unmodified reports (n = 15), or reports with anatomic illustrations (n = 8), lay summaries (n = 6) or glossaries (n = 6). Glossaries, illustrations, lay summaries, lay reports or lay conclusions all significantly improved participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication of radiology reports, compared to traditional reports. Furthermore, these formats increased affective perception (e.g., reduced anxiety and worry), although only significant for lay reports and conclusions.

conclusionModifying traditional radiology reports with glossaries, illustrations or lay language enhances patient information processing. KEY POINTS: Question Identifying the impact of different radiology report formats on outcomes related to patient information processing to enhance patient engagement through online access to radiology reports. Findings Lay language summaries, glossaries with patient-oriented definitions, and anatomic illustrations increase patients' satisfaction with and understanding of their radiology reports. Clinical relevance To increase patients' satisfaction, perceived usefulness and understanding with radiology reports, the use of lay language summaries, glossaries with patient-oriented definitions, and anatomic illustrations is recommended. These modifications decrease patients' unnecessary insecurity, confusion, anxiety and physician consultations after viewing reports.

Indexed as

RadiologyHumansElectronic health recordsHealth communicationMental processesPatient access to recordsRadiology

Identifiers

PMID39545980
PMCPMC12021958

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.