Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29600475›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Structured reporting adds clinical value in primary CT staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Franziska Schoeppe, Wieland H Sommer, Dominik Nörenberg, Mareike Verbeek, Christian Bogner, C Benedikt Westphalen, Martin Dreyling, Ernst J Rummeny, Alexander A Fingerle

Abstract readMulticenter 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 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Use and Perceptions of Oncology CT Structured Reports in Australia and New Zealand.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Franziska SchoeppeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchionistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. franziska.schoeppe@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1950-0844
Wieland H SommerDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchionistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Dominik NörenbergDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchionistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Mareike VerbeekIII. Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Christian BognerIII. Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
C Benedikt WestphalenDepartment of Internal Medicine III and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospital Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Martin DreylingDepartment of Internal Medicine III and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospital Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Ernst J RummenyInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Alexander A FingerleInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate whether template-based structured reports (SRs) add clinical value to primary CT staging in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) compared to free-text reports (FTRs).

methodsIn this two-centre study SRs and FTRs were acquired for 16 CT examinations. Thirty-two reports were independently scored by four haematologists using a questionnaire addressing completeness of information, structure, guidance for patient management and overall quality. The questionnaire included yes-no, 10-point Likert scale and 5-point scale questions. Altogether 128 completed questionnaires were evaluated. Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar's test were used for statistical analysis.

resultsSRs contained information on affected organs more often than FTRs (95 % vs. 66 %). More SRs commented on extranodal involvement (91 % vs. 62 %). Sufficient information for Ann-Arbor classification was included in more SRs (89 % vs. 64 %). Information extraction was quicker from SRs (median rating on 10-point Likert scale=9 vs. 6; 7-10 vs. 4-8 interquartile range). SRs had better comprehensibility (9 vs. 7; 8-10 vs. 5-8). Contribution of SRs to clinical decision-making was higher (9 vs. 6; 6-10 vs. 3-8). SRs were of higher quality (p < 0.001). All haematologists preferred SRs over FTRs.

conclusionsStructured reporting of CT examinations for primary staging in patients with DLBCL adds clinical value compared to FTRs by increasing completeness of reports, facilitating information extraction and improving patient management. KEY POINTS: • Structured reporting in CT helps clinicians to assess patients with lymphoma. • This two-centre study showed that structured reporting improves information content and extraction. • Patient management may be improved by structured reporting. • Clinicians preferred structured reports over free-text reports.

Indexed as

Medical RecordsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesTomography, X-Ray ComputedFree text reportsLymphoma, Large B-cell, DiffuseStructured reportingStructured reportsTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

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.