ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018
Recall of structured radiology reports is significantly superior to that of unstructured reports.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary attitudes towards LLM-structured oncologic CT reports: a prospective fixed-sequence questionnaire study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Generated Electronic Medical Record Summarization in Breast Surgical Oncology.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Structured reporting of dental panoramic images in a hospital-based radiology setting: a comparative study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Automatic Detection of Distant Metastasis Mentions in Radiology Reports in Spanish.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Radiologist Productivity Analytics: Factors Impacting Abdominal Pelvic CT Exam Reporting Times.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- Lower extremity CT angiography in peripheral arterial disease: from the established approach to evolving technical developments.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Review
- International Expert Consensus Statement on Chest Imaging in Pediatric COVID-19 Patient Management: Imaging Findings, Imaging Study Reporting, and Imaging Study Recommendations.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2020Article
- Creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages through multilingual structured reporting.European radiology · 2019Article
- Deep learning to convert unstructured CT pulmonary angiography reports into structured reports.European radiology experimental · 2019Article
- Pre-hepatic and pre-pancreatic transplant donor evaluation.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2019Review
- Review
- VI-RADS score system - A primer for urologists.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure recall of structured compared with unstructured radiology reports.
methodsInstitutional review board approval was obtained. Four hypothetical radiology reports, two structured and two unstructured reports, were created for the purposes of this study by an experienced consultant radiologist. The reports, each followed immediately by a multiple-choice questionnaire listing possible diagnoses from the report, were distributed to the members of two national physician associations using a web-based survey tool. Based on the number of correct responses, correct critical findings and incorrect responses, rates per number of potential diagnoses were calculated for each individual and averaged. The paired sign test compared results between structured and unstructured reports.
results148 respondents completed the survey, 126 (85.1%) of whom were physicians. The mean percentage of incorrect diagnoses was 4.5% for structured reports compared with 16.7% for unstructured reports (p < 0.001). The average rate of critical diagnosis recall was 82.7% for structured reports and 65.1% for unstructured reports (p < 0.001). The average percentage of all diagnoses detected for structured compared with unstructured reports was 64.3 and 59.0%, respectively (p = 0.007).
conclusionRecall of structured radiology reports is significantly superior to recall of unstructured reports immediately after reading the report. Advances in knowledge: A structured radiology report format can positively impact the referring clinician's ability to recall the critical findings with statistically significance.
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.