ArticleInsights into imaging2026
How do non-radiologist physicians read and use the radiology report? A French national survey.
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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe developed a national questionnaire to assess radiology reports (RR) physicians' reading habits and identify their expectations towards RR, focusing on CT and MRI reports. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn anonymized 20-item questionnaire was nationally distributed in France via practice and hospital mailing lists and one social media group, and included three sections: respondent's profile; RR reading (importance and reading of RR sections, advice on key images [i.e., selected summary screenshots for main findings]); use and impact of the RR. Overall and profile-based subgroup analyses were performed.
resultsOne thousand two hundred fifty physicians responded (58% women, 71% aged 20-34 years, 53.4% juniors, 85% from medical specialties). RR reading: 60.3% frequently read the whole report, 17.4% conclusion-only, and 9.9% images-only. Most respondents considered key images essential for comprehension, positively influencing opinion on RR and reinforcing confidence in the conclusion; 63.3% agree with a systematic key-images inclusion within RR. Concerning preliminary reports, 49.3% await validation by a senior radiologist to make their decision. RR use and impact: 55.7% copy the radiologist's conclusion into their record, 39.5% reformulate it. Seven percent admitted having made a medical error by not reading the RR carefully. In life-threatening emergencies, 75% review the RR retrospectively, 18.5% refer directly to specialists regardless of the radiologist's opinion. Responses were influenced by respondents' profile (medical specialists vs surgeons, academic status, experience, gender), especially regarding the importance of the radiologist's name and the incorporation of the conclusion.
conclusionMost clinicians declared reading the entire RR. Key images add value, while clinician profile shapes the way they read and use RR. KEY POINTS: Question: How do clinicians read and incorporate RR into medical records, and does the clinician's profile influence these practices?
findingsOut ot 1253 respondents, 60.3% read the entire report or the findings section depending on the conclusion; 55.7% copy the radiologist's conclusion. Critical relevance statement: RR's conclusions are commonly incorporated as is into the record. Careful conclusion formulation, together with the addition of illustrating key images, may facilitate report use. These findings prompt consideration of tailoring reporting practices to the profile of the requesting physician.
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.