ArticlePediatric radiology2014
An electronic tool for systematic reporting of fractures on skeletal surveys in suspected child abuse: prototype development and physician feedback.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The radiology report in child abuse.Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe a skeletal survey data entry and compilation tool and assess physician attitudes toward this reporting approach.
backgroundNarrative skeletal survey reports are highly variable and prone to inconsistencies with potential adverse impact on patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe prototype skeletal survey data entry and compilation tool was developed and introduced into clinical practice at a large urban children's hospital. Pediatric radiologists and child protection team (CPT) pediatricians completed a survey of reporting preferences. Skeletal survey reports between March 1, 2013, and March 1, 2014, were reviewed to assess use of the tool.
resultsThe survey response rate was 70% (14/20) for radiologists and 100% (4/4) for CPT pediatricians. Among responding radiologists, 54.5% (6/11) indicated that a skeletal survey data entry and compilation tool was helpful for skeletal surveys with >3 fractures; 80% (8/10) of responding radiologists indicated that tabulated data from prior skeletal survey was helpful when interpreting a follow-up skeletal survey with >3 fractures; 90.9% (10/11) of radiologists thought the tool improved report organization; 72.7% (8/11) thought it improved accuracy. Most radiologists (11/12, 91.7%) and 100% (4/4) of CPT clinicians preferred reports with both free text and a tabulated fracture list for testifying in court when >3 fractures were present. The tool was used in the reporting of 14/23 (61%) skeletal surveys with >3 fractures during a 1-year period. A case example using the application is presented.
conclusionMost radiologists and CPT physicians at our center prefer skeletal survey reports with tabulated data and narrative description; 91.7% (11/12) of radiologists and all CPT clinicians prefer this approach for testifying in court when >3 fractures are present.
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.