ArticleCureus2025
A Neuroimaging Audit of Patients Referred to an Old-Age Community Mental Health Team From Memory Assessment Service: Compliance With the Royal College of Radiologists Guidance.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Neuroimaging is a crucial component in the assessment of patients with suspected dementia, aiding in diagnostic confirmation, subtype differentiation, and the exclusion of reversible causes. The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) provides standards to guide the structured and comprehensive reporting of imaging scans, aiding in diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making. Local compliance with RCR standards may vary, which could influence the clinical utility of the scans. This audit was undertaken to evaluate local compliance with RCR reporting standards and identify areas for improvement. Methodology A total of 50 referrals from the Memory Assessment Service to the Old Age Community Mental Health Team (April 2024-September 2025) were reviewed. Radiology reports were analyzed for compliance with RCR standards, focusing on documentation of atrophy pattern, vascular pathology, reversible causes, use of rating scales, and inclusion of diagnostic conclusions. Data were also organized by imaging modality and indication to assess reporting consistency and completeness. Results Of the 50 referrals, nine (18%) patients were diagnosed with dementia without neuroimaging, consistent with clinical guidelines. Among 41 imaged patients, 33 had CT and four had MRI scans. Cerebral atrophy was described in 85% of reports, increasing to 100% for cognitive impairment cases; however, standardized scoring systems were infrequently used (Medial Temporal Atrophy score 7/22). Vascular pathology was mentioned in most reports with severity markers, but Fazekas scoring was used in 3/22 scans. Reversible causes were more comprehensively covered in scans done for indications other than cognitive impairment. Overall, 15/22 (68%) cognitive impairment reports included a diagnostic conclusion. Conclusions Local neuroimaging reports for dementia patients showed comprehensive recognition of atrophy and vascular changes but inconsistent use of standardized scoring, documentation of reversible causes, and diagnostic conclusions. Structured reporting templates and multidisciplinary feedback could improve adherence to RCR standards and enhance clinical utility.
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.