ArticleJournal of medical systems2019
Improving Communication of Actionable Findings in Radiology Imaging Studies and Procedures Using an EMR-Independent System.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facial trauma education in radiology: using surgeon feedback as the benchmark for success.Emergency radiology · 2024Article
- Automatic detection of actionable radiology reports using bidirectional encoder representations from transformers.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Deep Learning-Based Natural Language Processing in Radiology: The Impact of Report Complexity, Disease Prevalence, Dataset Size, and Algorithm Type on Model Performance.Journal of medical systems · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study is to determine if the implementation of an actionable findings communication system (PeerVue) with explicitly defined criteria for the classification of critical results, leads to an increase in the number of actionable findings reported by radiologists. Secondary goals are to 1) analyze the adoption rate of PeerVue and 2) assess the accuracy of the classification of actionable findings within this system. Over a two-year period, 890,204 radiology reports were analyzed retrospectively in order to identify the number of actionable findings communicated before (Year 1) and after the implementation of PeerVue (Year 2) at a tertiary care academic medical center. A sub-sample of 145 actionable findings over a two-month period in Year 2 was further analyzed to assess the degree of concordance with our reporting policy. Before PeerVue, 4623/423,070 (1.09%) of radiology reports contained an actionable finding. After its implementation, this number increased to 6825/467,134 (1.46%) (p < 0.0001). PeerVue was used in 3886/6825 (56.9%) cases with actionable findings. The remaining 2939/6825 (43.1%) were reported using the legacy tagging system. From the sub-sample taken from PeerVue, 104/145 (71.7%) were consistent with the updated reporting policy. A software program (PeerVue) utilized for the communication of actionable findings contributed to a 34% (p < 0.0001) increase in the reporting rate of actionable findings. A sub-analysis within the new system indicated a 56.9% adoption rate and a 71.7% accuracy rate in reporting of actionable findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30612206What 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.