ArticleEmergency radiology2016
Radiologist, obstetric patient, and emergency department provider survey: radiologist-patient interaction in the emergency department setting.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2016. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of a model of direct interaction between radiologist and patients in the emergency department (ED) setting. The study population was comprised of pregnant patients accrued in a non-consecutive prospective manner from June 2014 to September 2015, who had an obstetrical ultrasound performed in the radiology department of an inner-city tertiary care hospital at the request of the ED. The feasibility and approval of direct communication between radiologist and patient were evaluated by means of a questionnaire presented by an independent observer to the ED provider, patient, and radiologist. The exam enrolled 54 patients. Ultrasound (US) exam results were divided into (31) normal live intrauterine gestation (group 1), (7) abnormal failed intrauterine gestation or ectopic pregnancy (group 2), and (16) indeterminate pregnancies that could not be placed in the former categories and may require a follow-up exam (group 3). Forty-five (83 %) ED providers approved of the radiologist's direct communication with patients. Fifty (93 %) patients stated a better understanding of the radiologist's role in their care after than before the interaction. The radiologists found the interaction with patients to be positive in 52 (96 %) cases. Direct communication between radiologist and patient yielded a good acceptance by the radiologist, ED provider, and patient. More importantly, after the encounter, the vast majority of patients reported a better understanding of the radiologist's role in their care.
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.