ReviewJournal of digital imaging2010
Customization of medical report data.
Review in Journal of digital imaging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies for radiology reporting and communication part 3: patient communication and education.Journal of digital imaging · 2013Article
- Cross-sectional relatedness between sentences in breast radiology reports: development of an SVM classifier and evaluation against annotations of five breast radiologists.Journal of digital imaging · 2013Article
- Innovation opportunities in critical results communication: practical solutions.Journal of digital imaging · 2013Article
- Automatically correlating clinical findings and body locations in radiology reports using MedLEE.Journal of digital imaging · 2012Article
- Bridging the text-image gap: a decision support tool for real-time PACS browsing.Journal of digital imaging · 2012Article
- Retrieval of radiology reports citing critical findings with disease-specific customization.The open medical informatics journal · 2012Article
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
Structured reporting offers a number of theoretical advantages, perhaps the most important of which is creation of standardized report databases. The standardized data created can in turn be used to customize data display, report content, historical data retrieval, interpretation analysis, and results communication in both a context and user-specific manner. In addition, these referenceable report databases can be used to facilitate the practice of evidence based medicine, through data-driven meta-analysis and determination of best practice guidelines. This concept will only be realized if the customized data delivery technology provides real and tangible value to end users, accentuates workflow, can be seamlessly integrated into existing information system technologies, and be shown to yield reproducibility of the evidence domain. The time is here for the medical imaging and clinical communities to embrace this vision in order to improve clinical outcomes and patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.