ArticleEuropean radiology2018
Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Imaging intensive care patients: multidisciplinary conferences as a quality improvement initiative to reduce medical error.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- iRECIST-based versus non-standardized free text reporting of CT scans for monitoring metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical Routine and Necessary Advances in Soft Tissue Tumor Imaging Based on the ESSR Guideline: Initial Findings.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- The role of radiologist in the changing world of healthcare: a White Paper of the European Society of Radiology (ESR).Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- An approach to evaluate the quality of radiological reports in Head and Neck cancer loco-regional staging: experience of two Academic Hospitals.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Structured reporting of chest CT in COVID-19 pneumonia: a consensus proposal.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
29679214What 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.