Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29247353›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Structured vs narrative reporting of pelvic MRI for fibroids: clarity and impact on treatment planning.

Andrea Franconeri, Jieming Fang, Benjamin Carney, Almamoon Justaniah, Laura Miller, Hye-Chun Hur, Louise P King, Roa Alammari, Salomao Faintuch, Koenraad J Mortele and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Structured Versus Non-Structured Reporting of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Imaging: A Systematic Review.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Review
  6. Do MRI structured reports with FIGO classifications of leiomyomas contain adequate information for clinical decision making?International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Can New ENZIAN Score 2020 Represent a Staging System Improving MRI Structured Report?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Andrea FranconeriDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy.
Jieming FangDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Benjamin CarneyDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Almamoon JustaniahDepartment of Radiology, King Abdulla Medical City, Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
Laura MillerDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Hye-Chun HurDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Louise P KingDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Roa AlammariDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Salomao FaintuchDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Koenraad J MorteleDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Olga R BrookDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. obrook@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USHarvard University · USIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITKing Abdullah Medical City · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate clarity and usefulness of MRI reporting of uterine fibroids using a structured disease-specific template vs. narrative reporting for planning of fibroid treatment by gynaecologists and interventional radiologists.

methodsThis is a HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved study with waiver of informed consent. A structured reporting template for fibroid MRIs was developed in collaboration between gynaecologists, interventional and diagnostic radiologists. The study population included 29 consecutive women who underwent myomectomy for fibroids and pelvic MRI prior to implementation of structured reporting, and 42 consecutive women with MRI after implementation of structured reporting. Subjective evaluation (on a scale of 1-10, 0 not helpful; 10 extremely helpful) and objective evaluation for the presence of 19 key features were performed.

resultsMore key features were absent in the narrative reports 7.3 ± 2.5 (range 3-12) than in structured reports 1.2 ± 1.5 (range 1-7), (p < 0.0001). Compared to narrative reports, gynaecologists and radiologists deemed structured reports both more helpful for surgical planning (p < 0.0001) (gynaecologists: 8.5 ± 1.2 vs. 5.7 ± 2.2; radiologists: 9.6 ± 0.6 vs. 6.0 ± 2.9) and easier to understand (p < 0.0001) (gynaecologists: 8.9 ± 1.1 vs. 5.8 ± 1.9; radiologists: 9.4 ± 1.3 vs. 6.3 ± 1.8).

conclusionStructured fibroid MRI reports miss fewer key features than narrative reports. Moreover, structured reports were described as more helpful for treatment planning and easier to understand. KEY POINTS: • Structured reports missed only 1.2 ± 1.5 out of 19 key features, as compared to narrative reports that missed 7.3 ± 2.5 key features for planning of fibroid treatment. • Structured reports were more helpful and easier to understand by clinicians. • Structured template can provide essential information for fibroids treatment planning.

Indexed as

Radiology Information SystemsAdultFemaleHumansLeiomyomaMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedPatient Care PlanningRetrospective StudiesUterine MyomectomyUterine NeoplasmsConventional reportingFibroids treatmentMagnetic Resonance ImagingStructured reportingUterine Fibroids

Identifiers

PMID29247353
OpenAlexW2773199325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.