ArticleInsights into imaging2020
Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of different radiology report formats on patient information processing: a systematic review.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Characteristics and Effectiveness of Interventions That Target the Reporting, Communication, or Clinical Interpretation of Lumbar Imaging Findings: A Systematic Review.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Pooled it
- How do non-radiologist physicians read and use the radiology report? A French national survey.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Psychological Impact of AI-Simplified Brain MRI Reports: A Randomized Trial of Patient Understanding, Anxiety, and Health Literacy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Lexomics, or why to extract relevant information from radiology reports through LLMs.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Quality and Understandability of Radiology Report Summaries Generated by ChatGPT: Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Article
- American College of Veterinary Radiology and European College of Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging consensus statement on imaging report foundations.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2025Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence to Improve Patient Understanding of Radiology Reports.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2023Review
- Clinicians' interpretation of ventilation/perfusion lung scan reports: Where are we today?African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Enhancing Communication and Consent Using 3-D Printed Models With a Pediatric Dental Patient Presenting With Odontogenic Keratocysts Associated With Gorlin Syndrome: A Case Report.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Imaging reports are the primary method of communicating diagnostic imaging findings between the radiologist and the referring clinician. Guidelines produced by professional bodies provide guidance on content and format of imaging reports, but the extent to which they consider comprehensibility for referring clinicians and their patients is unclear. The objective of this review was to determine the extent to which radiology reporting guidelines consider comprehensibility of imaging reports for referring clinicians and patients.We performed a scoping review of English-language diagnostic imaging reporting guidelines. We searched electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase) and websites of radiological professional organisations to identify guidelines. The extent to which the guidelines recommended essential report features such as technical information, content, format and language, as well as features to enhance comprehensibility, such as lay language summaries, was recorded.Six guidelines from professional bodies representing radiologists from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong, the UK and Europe were identified from the search. Inconsistencies exist between guidelines in their recommendations, and they rarely consider that patients may read the report. No guideline made recommendations about the reporting of results considering the clinical context, and none recommended features preferred by patients such as lay language summaries. This review identifies an opportunity for future radiology reporting guidelines to give greater consideration to referring clinician and patient preferences.
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.