ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2015
A default normal chest CT structured reporting field for coronary calcifications does not cause excessive false-negative reporting.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of Automated Transfer of Semi-Automated Segmentation and Structured Report Rule Requirements on Cardiac MRI Report Quality, Standardization, and Efficiency.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- An approach to evaluate the quality of radiological reports in Head and Neck cancer loco-regional staging: experience of two Academic Hospitals.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of coronary atherosclerosis reporting before and after the implementation of a structured reporting chest CT template.
methodsA noncardiac, noncontrast chest CT structured reporting template was developed and mandated for department-wide use at a large academic center. The template included the statement "There are no coronary artery calcifications." All noncardiac, noncontrast chest CT examinations reported over 3 days, 1 month after template implementation (structured template group), and from a 3-day period 1 year prior (control group) were retrospectively collected. Final radiology reports were reviewed and designated positive or negative for coronary calcifications. CT images were reviewed in consensus by 2 radiologists, who scored each case for the presence or absence of coronary calcifications, blinded to the original report. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson χ(2) and Fisher exact tests.
resultsSixty-five percent (69 of 106) of structured template group and 58% (62 of 106) of control group cases had coronary calcifications. Reports from the structured template group were more likely to correctly state the presence or absence of coronary atherosclerosis compared with those from the control group (96.2% vs 85.8%; odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-13.1; P = .008). Structured template group reports were less likely to be falsely negative compared with control group reports (3.8% vs 11.7%; odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-10.8; P = .03).
conclusionsImplementing a structured reporting template improves reporting accuracy of coronary calcifications.
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.