Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39700431›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2025

Improving radiology reporting locally and globally: who, how, and why?

Kirsten L Gormly

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Kirsten L GormlyJones Radiology, Adelaide, SA 5063, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9794-5507

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The radiology report is the communication from radiologist to referrer, used to inform prognosis and guide patient management. The report is the final step in a process which is influenced by the information on the referral, image quality, the reporting environment, and appropriate detection and interpretation of findings by the radiologist. It should present accurate, complete information in a way that can be easily understood. Even small improvements in any of these areas can have a significant impact on the average quality of radiology reports, with potential impact on vast numbers of patients across the globe. How do we train our future referrers to understand the complexities of imaging and write better referrals? How do we improve image quality as close to source as possible by engaging with equipment vendors? How can we make it easier for all radiologists to have access to the latest guidelines and use reporting templates where appropriate? Every radiologist has a role to play, with possible actions ranging from individual choice to departmental policies and global collaboration. The diseases we diagnose are the same, the equipment similar and knowledge freely available. All our patients deserve the best report we can provide.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementRadiologyRadiology Information SystemsReferral and ConsultationHumansimage qualityimaging guidelinesimprovementradiology referraltemplate report

Identifiers

PMID39700431
PMCPMC11840159

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.