ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2017
Assigning responsibility to close the loop on radiology test results.
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Privacy-Preserving Large Language Model for Matching Findings and Tracking Interval Changes in Longitudinal Radiology Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- American College of Veterinary Radiology and European College of Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging consensus statement on imaging report foundations.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2025Article
- Creating a Safety Net Process to Improve Colon Cancer Diagnosis in Patients With Rectal Bleeding.The Permanente journal · 2022Article
- An Evolution of Reporting: Identifying the Missing Link.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- RADAR: A Closed-Loop Quality Improvement Initiative Leveraging A Safety Net Model for Incidental Pulmonary Nodule Management.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2021Article
- Closing the loop on test results to reduce communication failures: a rapid review of evidence, practice and patient perspectives.BMC health services research · 2020Review
- Imaging activity possibly signalling missed diagnostic opportunities in bladder and kidney cancer: A longitudinal data-linkage study using primary care electronic health records.Cancer epidemiology · 2020Article
- Augmented intelligence with natural language processing applied to electronic health records for identifying patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at risk for disease progression.International journal of medical informatics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Failure to follow-up on test results represents a serious breakdown point in the diagnostic process which can lead to missed or delayed diagnoses and patient harm. Amidst discussions to ensure fail-safe test result follow-up, an important, yet under-discussed question emerges: how do we determine who is ultimately responsible for initiating follow-up action on the tests that are ordered? This seemingly simple question belies its true complexity. Although many of these complexities are also applicable to other diagnostic specialities, the field of medical imaging provides an ideal context to discuss the challenges of attributing responsibility of test result follow-up. In this review, we summarize several key concepts and challenges in the context of critical results, wet reads, and incidental findings to stimulate further discussion on responsibility issues in radiology. These discussions could help establish reliable closed-loop communication to ensure that every test result is sent, received, acknowledged and acted upon without failure.
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.