ArticleThe neuroradiology journal2019
The value of structured radiology reports to categorize intracranial metastases following radiation therapy.
Article in The neuroradiology journal, 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.
- Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Real-time PACS-integrated longitudinal brain metastasis tracking tool provides comprehensive assessment of treatment response to radiosurgery.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- Artificial-intelligence-driven measurements of brain metastases' response to SRS compare favorably with current manual standards of assessment.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
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
purposeRadiology descriptions of intracranial metastases following radiotherapy are often imprecise. This study sought to improve such reports by creating and disseminating a structured template that encourages discrete categorization of intracranial lesions.
methodsFollowing initiation of the structured template, a retrospective review assessed patients with intracranial metastases that underwent radiotherapy, comparing 'pre-template' with 'post-template' reports. A total of 139 patients were included; 94 patients (67.6%) were imaged pre-template, 45 (32.4%) post-template. Reports were assessed for discrete versus non-specific descriptions of lesions: '(presumed) new metastases', 'treated metastases', and 'indeterminate lesions'. Non-specific language was subdivided based on the type of lesion(s) described: e.g. 'stable enhancing foci' was deemed a non-specific description of 'treated metastases'.
resultsNon-specific descriptions of lesions were used in 25/94 reports (26.6%) pre-template, and eight reports (17.8%) post-template. No significant difference was found in the frequency of inappropriate/ambiguous descriptions of intracranial lesions following template initiation (
conclusionWhen utilized, a structured report template resulted in decreased non-specific descriptions and improved discrete characterization of intracranial metastases in patients treated with radiation. However, the frequency of non-specific language usage before and after template initiation was unchanged, probably due to poor compliance with template 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.