ArticlePediatric radiology2017
The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 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.
- Automated Incidental Findings Notification Through the Electronic Health Record Utilizing Dictation Macros.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Radiologists should support non-radiologist point-of-care ultrasonography in children: a case for involvement and collaboration.Pediatric radiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Engaging patients and families in pediatric radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2020Review
- Follow-up recommendations: the challenge, the opportunity and our future.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe American College of Radiology (ACR) practice parameters for communication dictate that follow-up recommendations be suggested when appropriate. Radiologists assume that referring physicians read their reports and heed their advice. In reality, recommendations might not be carried out or even acknowledged.
objectiveWe aimed to determine the proportion of imaging recommendations that are acknowledged and acted upon. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of all consecutive radiology reports containing "recommend" in the impression at a single academic children's hospital over a 1-month period. We documented point of care (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient), study type, recommendation wording, and communication method (report only or direct verbal). We reviewed medical records to ascertain whether the recommendations were acknowledged or executed. We used chi-square tests to evaluate associations between variables. P<0.05 was considered significant.
resultsWe reviewed 526 reports and excluded 73. We included the remaining 453 reports, from 370 unique patients (201 male, 169 female). Inpatients comprised most reports (n=223), followed by emergency department (ED) patients (n=118) and outpatients (n=112). Among these reports, 69% (n=313) of recommendations were executed. Of the 140 recommendations not carried out, 14% were acknowledged in clinical notes. Compliance correlated with point of care (ED>inpatient>outpatient; P=0.001) but not with additional verbal communication (P=0.33), study type (radiograph vs. other; P=0.35) or type of follow-up recommendation (follow-up imaging vs. other; P=0.99).
conclusionNearly one-third of radiology report follow-up recommendations are not executed. Recommendations are most commonly neglected for outpatient imaging reports. The radiology community should take steps to improve recommendation adherence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28852809What 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.