ArticleJournal of digital imaging2019
Utilization of Structured Reporting to Monitor Outcomes of Doppler Ultrasound Performed for Deep Vein Thrombosis.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structured panendoscopy reports improve report completeness and documentation time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Structured report data can be used to develop deep learning algorithms: a proof of concept in ankle radiographs.Insights into imaging · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining the clinical impact of imaging exams at the enterprise level is problematic, as radiology reports historically have been created with the content meant primarily for the referring provider. Structured reporting can establish the foundation for enterprise monitoring of imaging outcomes without manual review providing the framework for assessment of utilization and quality. Ultrasound (US) for deep vein thrombosis evaluation (DVT) is an ideal testbed for assessing this functionality. The system standard template for Doppler US for extremity venous evaluation for DVT was updated with a discrete fixed picklist of impression options and implemented system wide. Template utilization and interpretive outcomes were actively monitored and use reinforced as part of standard clinical practice. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, 9111 US exams for DVT were performed with 8997 utilizing structured reporting (98.75%). Of those in the structured reporting group, 1074 (11.79%) were positive for any type of DVT with 732 (8.03%) reported as Acute/New above the knee. Positive rates for any type of DVT were 10.29% emergency department, 14.17% inpatient, and 13.20% outpatient. While being the lowest positive rate, the emergency department had the highest overall volume of exams. Structured reporting for DVT US assessment outcomes can be implemented with a very high rate of radiologist adoption and adherence providing accurate determination of positive rates, month by month, in differing patient locations. Structured elements can be used to automatically trigger downstream processes; in our institution, this will alert providers in the EHR if the patient does not receive anticoagulation within 2 h of a positive test. This lays the foundation for effective enterprise assessment of imaging outcomes forming the basis of future quality and safety initiatives on optimizing health system resource utilization.
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.