ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Getting Beyond Plain Text: Long-Term Adoption Rates and Survey of Radiologist Experience with Interactive Multimedia Reporting Technology.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiology reports are ubiquitously formatted as plain text even though interactive multimedia reporting technology (IMR) is capable of enriching reports. To evaluate long-term adoption rates and radiologists' clinical experiences with IMR, we reviewed the last 1 year of diagnostic reports (n = 382,508), 5 years after IMR implementation, for the presence of hyperlinks. An anonymous survey about IMR was built in Qualtrics and distributed to radiologists (n = 128). Results include the following: (1) Last 12-month % of reports containing hyperlinks to imaging findings varied by modality and subspecialty. The highest rates were observed for CT (53-75%, multiple subspecialties), MRI (51-78%, multiple subspecialties), and PET-CT (66%). (2) Survey response rate = 41% (n = 52). Eighty-six percent of radiologists reported inserting hyperlinks to important findings in the majority of MRI, CT, and PET reports, with perceived average of 8.9 (SD = 5.4) seconds saved for each hyperlink placed due to automated data insertion (e.g., measurements, image/series numbers, etc.). Eighty-eight percent of radiologists associated this automation with fewer reporting errors. Ninety-five percent of radiologists (85% strongly) overall prefer reviewing previous reports with hyperlinks, citing greater clarity (98%) and time savings (96%). Sixty-nine percent of radiologists reported "almost always" utilizing automatic insertion of comparison exams into reports, saving a perceived 12.4 (SD = 6.7) seconds per report. Eighty-five percent of radiologists reported adding key images to reports, and 98% believe this helped consumer understanding. In conclusion, radiologists commonly create interactive multimedia reports when enabled. IMR was associated with perceptions of time savings, reduced errors, greater clarity, and greater value in reports.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42839154What 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.