ArticleAcademic radiology2014
Assessment of follow-up completeness and notification preferences for imaging findings of possible cancer: what happens after radiologists submit their reports?
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Privacy-Preserving Large Language Model for Matching Findings and Tracking Interval Changes in Longitudinal Radiology Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Incidental Breast Findings on Chest CT: Rates of Report and Follow-Up.Radiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Predictors of Physician Agreement With Radiologist-Recommended Follow-up Imaging.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- The Fine-Tuned Large Language Model for Extracting the Progressive Bone Metastasis from Unstructured Radiology Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Predictors of Completion of Clinically Necessary Radiologist-Recommended Follow-Up Imaging: Assessment Using an Automated Closed-Loop Communication and Tracking Tool.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2023Article
- Article
- Incidental Pulmonary Nodules - What Do We Know in 2022.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2022Review
- Automatic detection of actionable radiology reports using bidirectional encoder representations from transformers.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Determining Follow-Up Imaging Study Using Radiology Reports.Journal of digital imaging · 2020Article
- The RADCAT-3 system for closing the loop on important non-urgent radiology findings: a multidisciplinary system-wide approach.Emergency radiology · 2017Article
- Improving Quality of Follow-Up Imaging Recommendations in Radiology.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017Article
- Does integrating nonurgent, clinically significant radiology alerts within the electronic health record impact closed-loop communication and follow-up?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Article
- Code Abdomen: An Assessment Coding Scheme for Abdominal Imaging Findings Possibly Representing Cancer.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.