ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2014
Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum.
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ensuring patient safety: a comprehensive approach to radiological errors.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- AI application in radiology beyond imaging: What is the role of text-based large language models?European radiology · 2026Article
- Collaborating with non-radiological clinical colleagues.Pediatric radiology · 2025Review
- The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
- Assigning responsibility to close the loop on radiology test results.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2017Article
- [Incidental findings : Evaluation, management recommendations and legal considerations].Der Radiologe · 2017Article
- Development and Validation of Electronic Health Record-based Triggers to Detect Delays in Follow-up of Abnormal Lung Imaging Findings.Radiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Communication problems in diagnostic testing have increased in both number and importance in recent years. The medical and legal impact of failure of communication is dramatic. Over the past decades, the courts have expanded and strengthened the duty imposed on radiologists to timely communicate radiologic abnormalities to referring physicians and perhaps the patients themselves in certain situations. The need to communicate these findings goes beyond strict legal requirements: there is a moral imperative as well. The Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association points out that "Ethical values and legal principles are usually closely related, but ethical obligations typically exceed legal duties." Thus, from the perspective of the law, radiologists are required to communicate important unexpected findings to referring physicians in a timely fashion, or alternatively to the patients themselves. From a moral perspective, radiologists should
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.