ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017
Value-Based Assessment of Radiology Reporting Using Radiologist-Referring Physician Two-Way Feedback System-a Design Thinking-Based Approach.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feedback in radiology: Essential tool for improving user experience and providing value-based care.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- A Global Review of the Impacts of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on Radiology Practice, Finances, and Operations.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Multispecialty Enterprise Imaging Workgroup Consensus on Interactive Multimedia Reporting Current State and Road to the Future: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper.Journal of digital imaging · 2021Review
- VR/AR Technology in Human Anatomy Teaching and Operation Training.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Design Thinking to Improve Implementation of Public Health Interventions: An Exploratory Case Study on Enhancing Park Use.Design for health (Abingdon, England) · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the era of value-based healthcare, many aspects of medical care are being measured and assessed to improve quality and reduce costs. Radiology adds enormously to health care costs and is under pressure to adopt a more efficient system that incorporates essential metrics to assess its value and impact on outcomes. Most current systems tie radiologists' incentives and evaluations to RVU-based productivity metrics and peer-review-based quality metrics. In a new potential model, a radiologist's performance will have to increasingly depend on a number of parameters that define "value," beginning with peer review metrics that include referrer satisfaction and feedback from radiologists to the referring physician that evaluates the potency and validity of clinical information provided for a given study. These new dimensions of value measurement will directly impact the cascade of further medical management. We share our continued experience with this project that had two components: RESP (Referrer Evaluation System Pilot) and FRACI (Feedback from Radiologist Addressing Confounding Issues), which were introduced to the clinical radiology workflow in order to capture referrer-based and radiologist-based feedback on radiology reporting. We also share our insight into the principles of design thinking as applied in its planning and execution.
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.