Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25179562›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2014

Assessment of follow-up completeness and notification preferences for imaging findings of possible cancer: what happens after radiologists submit their reports?

Caroline E Sloan, Seetharam C Chadalavada, Tessa S Cook, Curtis P Langlotz, Mitchell D Schnall, Hanna M Zafar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Predictors of Physician Agreement With Radiologist-Recommended Follow-up Imaging.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Incidental Pulmonary Nodules - What Do We Know in 2022.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Improving Quality of Follow-Up Imaging Recommendations in Radiology.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Caroline E SloanPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: csloan@mail.med.upenn.edu.
Seetharam C ChadalavadaPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Tessa S CookPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Curtis P LanglotzPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mitchell D SchnallPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Hanna M ZafarPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

RESEARCH TRACK RADIOLOGY RESIDENCYT32EB004311 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Terence P Gade, Misun Hwang · 2005 to 2026
$4.5M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB004311
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesTo understand the reasons leading to potentially inappropriate management of imaging findings concerning for malignancy and identify optimal methods for communicating these findings to providers. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe identified all abdominal imaging examinations with findings of possible cancer performed on six randomly selected days in August to December 2013. Electronic medical records (EMR) of one patient group were reviewed 3 months after the index examination to determine whether management was appropriate (completed follow-up or documented reason for no follow-up) or potentially inappropriate (no follow-up or no documented reason). Providers of a second patient group were contacted 5-6 days after imaging examinations to determine notification preferences.

resultsAmong 43 patients in the first group, five (12%) received potentially inappropriate management. Reasons included patient loss to follow-up and provider failure to review imaging results, document known imaging findings, or communicate findings to providers outside the health system. Among 16 providers caring for patients in the second group, 33% were unaware of the findings, 75% preferred to be notified of abnormal findings via e-mail or EMR, 56% wanted an embedded hyperlink enabling immediate follow-up order entry, and only 25% had a system to monitor whether patients had completed ordered testing.

conclusionsOne in eight patients did not receive potentially necessary follow-up care within 3 months of imaging findings of possible cancer. Automated notification of imaging findings and follow-up monitoring not only is desired by providers but can also address many of the reasons we found for inappropriate management.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareDiagnostic ImagingInterdisciplinary CommunicationHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedNeoplasmsPractice Patterns, Physicians'communicationcontinuity of patient careFollow-upphysician practice patterns

Identifiers

PMID25179562
PMCPMC4825815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.