ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Decoding collaboration obstacles: a survey on reporting preferences between neuroradiologists and clinical specialists.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify reporting preferences and communication barriers between neuroradiologists and neuro-associated clinicians at a tertiary neuroscience center. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo near-identical, multilingual online surveys (17 questions) were distributed to neuroradiologists and clinicians in neurology, neurosurgery, and otorhinolaryngology. The surveys included demographic questions, satisfaction assessments, and report-related preferences. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages).
resultsResponses were obtained from 80 physicians (21 neuroradiologists; 59 clinicians). Most clinicians reported reading the entire report (59.3%); subspecialty differences were not significant (chi-square test, p = 0.59). In a stroke scenario, context-based structured reports were preferred by 45.8% of clinicians, in contrast to only by 9.5% of neuroradiologists. Standardized classifications and quantitative measurements were endorsed often/always by 59.3%, and key images were considered useful routinely or in complex cases by 89.8% of clinicians. For the clinical neuro-related subspecialties, no significant between-group difference in impact ratings was observed (chi-square test, p = 0.25). Neuroradiologists indicated that more detailed clinical information would be beneficial.
conclusionClinicians favor context-based structured reporting with classifications, quantitative measurements, and key images, whereas neuroradiologists predominantly prefer conventional formats. Adopting context-based templates with clear governance may help align expectations and support interdisciplinary workflows. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: More focused and detailed clinical information, together with greater use of context-based structured reports incorporating classifications, quantitative measurements, and key images, may facilitate clearer communication between radiologists and clinicians and better support tailored clinical decision-making workflows. KEY POINTS: Interdisciplinary reporting needs in neuroradiology were assessed by surveys. Clinicians favor context-based structured reports and standardized content. Referral quality and report design are modifiable barriers to improving workflow.
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.