ArticleBMC medical imaging2019
Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary attitudes towards LLM-structured oncologic CT reports: a prospective fixed-sequence questionnaire study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Impact of structured reporting on interpretability of PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer staging-towards standardised clinical implementation.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Structured reporting of B-mode, color Doppler, and CEUS in testicular tumor assessment: a reader study with urologist ratings.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Differential Diagnosis of Parotid Tumors on Ultrasound: Interobserver Variability and Examiner-Specific Decision Rules-A Machine Learning Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The influence of structured reporting on the accuracy of head and neck sonographies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Structured reporting of dental panoramic images in a hospital-based radiology setting: a comparative study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Structured panendoscopy reports improve report completeness and documentation time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Structured Reporting in Sleep Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Structured reporting of neuroendocrine tumors in PET/CT using [Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- A Critical Examination of Academic Hospital Practices-Paving the Way for Standardized Structured Reports in Neuroimaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Structured Reporting of Head and Neck Sonography Achieves Substantial Interrater Reliability.Ultrasound international open · 2023Article
- Thoracic UltrasONOgraphy Reporting: The TUONO Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- Head and Neck Ultrasound - EFSUMB Training Recommendations for the Practice of Medical Ultrasound in Europe.Ultrasound international open · 2022Article
- Article
- ENT Residents Benefit from a Structured Operation Planning Approach in the Training of Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner's individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations.
methodsBoth standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss' kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI).
resultsBy comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs' completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa 0.92).
conclusionsAs compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.
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.