Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25247948›Full record

ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2014

Journal club: Renal masses detected at abdominal CT: radiologists' adherence to guidelines regarding management recommendations and communication of critical results.

Cleo K Maehara, Stuart G Silverman, Ronilda Lacson, Ramin Khorasani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Natural Language Processing Technologies in Radiology Research and Clinical Applications.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc
    Review
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

4 authors.

Cleo K Maehara1 Department of Radiology, Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Stuart G Silverman
Ronilda Lacson
Ramin Khorasani

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING-MEDICAL INFORMATICS 90T15LM007092 · NLM · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Nils Gehlenborg · 1992 to 2026
$32.8M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007092NLM NIH HHS T15LM007092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess radiologists' adherence to published guidelines for managing renal masses detected at abdominal CT at one institution and to a critical results communication policy. MATERIALS AND

methodsA validated natural language processing tool supplemented by manual review was used to randomly assemble a cohort of 97 radiology reports from all abdominal CT reports (n = 11,952) generated from July 2010 to June 2011. Critical renal mass findings warranted consideration for surgery, intervention, or imaging follow-up and required direct, separate, and timely communication to the referrer in addition to the radiology report. Primary outcomes were adherence to guidelines and institutional policy for communicating critical results. Sample size allowed a 95% CI ± 5% for primary outcome. Pearson chi-square test was performed to assess whether radiology subspecialization was predictive of the primary outcome.

resultsOf all abdominal CT reports, 35.6% contained at least one renal mass finding (4.3% critical). Guideline adherence was lower for patients with critical than for those with noncritical findings (48/57 [84.2%] vs 40/40 [100%]; p = 0.01). Adherence to critical result communication policy was 73.7% (42/57). For critical findings, abdominal radiologists had higher guideline adherence (40/43 [93.0%] vs 8/14 [57.1%]; p = 0.001) and critical result communication policy adherence (36/43 [83.7%] vs 6/14 [42.9%]; p = 0.002) than nonabdominal radiologists.

conclusionIn reporting renal masses detected at abdominal CT, radiologists largely adhered to management guidelines but did not adhere to the critical results communication policy in one of four reports. Subspecialization improved adherence to both management guidelines and the institution's critical result communication policy.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBostonDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedRadiography, AbdominalRadiologyReproducibility of Resultsabdominal CTAmerican Urological Association guidelinescritical test resultsevidence-based practicerenal cystrenal mass

Identifiers

PMID25247948
PMCPMC4441534

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.