Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31452006›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2020

Determining Follow-Up Imaging Study Using Radiology Reports.

Sandeep Dalal, Vadiraj Hombal, Wei-Hung Weng, Gabe Mankovich, Thusitha Mabotuwana, Christopher S Hall, Joseph Fuller, Bruce E Lehnert, Martin L Gunn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sandeep DalalClinical Informatics Solutions and Services, Philips Research North America, 2 Canal Park, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA.
Vadiraj HombalClinical Informatics Solutions and Services, Philips Research North America, 2 Canal Park, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA. vadiraj.hombal@philips.com.
Wei-Hung WengDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, 10 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Gabe MankovichClinical Informatics Solutions and Services, Philips Research North America, 2 Canal Park, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA.
Thusitha MabotuwanaRadiology Solutions, Philips Healthcare, 22100 Bothell Everett Highway, Bothell, WA, 98021, USA.
Christopher S HallRadiology Solutions, Philips Healthcare, 22100 Bothell Everett Highway, Bothell, WA, 98021, USA.
Joseph FullerDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Bruce E LehnertDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Martin L GunnDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiology reports often contain follow-up imaging recommendations. Failure to comply with these recommendations in a timely manner can lead to delayed treatment, poor patient outcomes, complications, unnecessary testing, lost revenue, and legal liability. The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach to automatically identify the completion of a follow-up imaging study recommended by a radiologist in a preceding report. We selected imaging-reports containing 559 follow-up imaging recommendations and all subsequent reports from a multi-hospital academic practice. Three radiologists identified appropriate follow-up examinations among the subsequent reports for the same patient, if any, to establish a ground-truth dataset. We then trained an Extremely Randomized Trees that uses recommendation attributes, study meta-data and text similarity of the radiology reports to determine the most likely follow-up examination for a preceding recommendation. Pairwise inter-annotator F-score ranged from 0.853 to 0.868; the corresponding F-score of the classifier in identifying follow-up exams was 0.807. Our study describes a methodology to automatically determine the most likely follow-up exam after a follow-up imaging recommendation. The accuracy of the algorithm suggests that automated methods can be integrated into a follow-up management application to improve adherence to follow-up imaging recommendations. Radiology administrators could use such a system to monitor follow-up compliance rates and proactively send reminders to primary care providers and/or patients to improve adherence.

Indexed as

RadiologyRadiology Information SystemsAlgorithmsDiagnostic ImagingFollow-Up StudiesHumansFollow-up studiesMedical informatics applicationsNatural language processingRadiologySupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID31452006
PMCPMC7064667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.