ArticleLa Radiologia medica2019
Value of structured reporting in neuromuscular disorders.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Neuromuscular imaging in clinical practice: an ESNR survey of 30 centers.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Radiomics as a New Frontier of Imaging for Cancer Prognosis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether structured reports (SRs) of MRI in patients with inherited neuromuscular disorders (IND) provide more clinically relevant information than non-structured reports (NSRs) and whether neuroradiologists' expertise affects completeness of reports. MATERIAL AND
methodsLower limbs' MRI reports of patients with IND produced by neuroradiologists with different level of expertise (> 15 years vs. < 15 years of experience in reading IND-MRI) before and after implementation of a SR template were included. Reports were assessed for the presence of 9 key features relevant for IND management. Reports and images were evaluated by neurologists who assessed: disease-specific muscular involvement pattern; presence of sufficient information to order the appropriate genetic/diagnostic tests; presence of sufficient information to make therapeutic decision/perform biopsy and necessity to review MRI images. Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the number of key features for NSR and SR and neurologists' answers for reports produced by neuroradiologists with different experience.
resultsThirty-one SRs and 101 NSRs were reviewed. A median of 8 and 6 key features was present in SR and NSR, respectively (p value < 0.0001). When reports were produced by less expert neuroradiologists, neurologists recognized muscular involvement pattern, had sufficient information for clinical decision-making/perform biopsy more often with SR than NSR (p values: < 0.0001), and needed to evaluate images less often with SR (p value: 0.0001). When reports produced by expert neuroradiologists were evaluated, no significant difference in neurologists' answers was observed.
conclusionSR of IND-MRI contained more often clinically relevant information considered important for disease management than NSR. Radiologist's expertise affects completeness of NSR reports.
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.