Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29679214›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow.

A W Olthof, J Borstlap, W W Roeloffzen, P M C Callenbach, P M A van Ooijen

Abstract read
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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

5 authors.

A W OlthofDepartment of Radiology, Treant Health Care Group, Dr. G.H. Amshoffweg 1, Hoogeveen, The Netherlands. a.olthof@treant.nl.
J BorstlapDepartment of Radiology, Treant Health Care Group, Dr. G.H. Amshoffweg 1, Hoogeveen, The Netherlands.
W W RoeloffzenDepartment of Oncology, Treant Health Care Group, Dr. G.H. Amshoffweg 1, Hoogeveen, The Netherlands.
P M C CallenbachResearch Bureau, Treant Health Care Group, Dr. G.H. Amshoffweg 1, Hoogeveen, The Netherlands.
P M A van OoijenDepartment of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement project in a clinical cancer network directed at the response assessment of oncology patients according to RECIST-criteria.

methodsRequests and reports of computed tomography (CT) studies from before (n = 103) and after (n = 112) implementation of interventions were compared. The interventions consisted of: a multidisciplinary working agreement with a clearly described workflow; subspecialisation of radiologists; adaptation of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); structured reporting.

resultsThe essential information included in the requests and the reports improved significantly after implementation of the interventions. In the requests, mentioning start date increased from 2% to 49%; date of baseline CT from 7% to 64%; nadir date from 1% to 41%. In the reports, structured layout increased from 14% to 86%; mentioning target lesions from 18% to 80% and non-target lesions from 11% to 80%; measurements stored in PACS increased from 76% to 97%; labelled key images from 38% to 95%; all p values < 0.001.

conclusionThe combination of implementation of an optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting led to significantly better quality radiology reporting for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. The applied multifactorial approach can be used within other radiology subspeciality areas as well. KEY POINTS: • Undeveloped subspecialisation makes adherence to RECIST guidelines difficult in general hospitals. • A clinical cancer network provides opportunities to improve healthcare. • Optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting substantially improve request and report quality. • Good interdisciplinary communication between oncologists, radiologists and others contributes to quality improvement.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary CommunicationRadiology Information SystemsWorkflowHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ImprovementRadiologyResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsTomography, X-Ray ComputedHealth facility mergerInterdisciplinary communicationMedical oncologyQuality assurance, healthcareRadiology information systems

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.