ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021
Integrity of clinical information in radiology reports documenting pulmonary nodules.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracting Pulmonary Nodules and Nodule Characteristics from Radiology Reports of Lung Cancer Screening Patients Using Transformer Models.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2024Article
- Actionability of Recommendations for Additional Imaging in Head and Neck Radiology.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2024Article
- Development and Assessment of an Information Technology Intervention to Improve the Clarity of Radiologist Follow-up Recommendations.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Mechanisms ofIntegrative cancer therapiesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveQuantify the integrity, measured as completeness and concordance with a thoracic radiologist, of documenting pulmonary nodule characteristics in CT reports and assess impact on making follow-up recommendations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved, retrospective cohort study was performed at an academic medical center. Natural language processing was performed on radiology reports of CT scans of chest, abdomen, or spine completed in 2016 to assess presence of pulmonary nodules, excluding patients with lung cancer, of which 300 reports were randomly sampled to form the study cohort. Documentation of nodule characteristics were manually extracted from reports by 2 authors with 20% overlap. CT images corresponding to 60 randomly selected reports were further reviewed by a thoracic radiologist to record nodule characteristics. Documentation completeness for all characteristics were reported in percentage and compared using χ2 analysis. Concordance with a thoracic radiologist was reported as percentage agreement; impact on making follow-up recommendations was assessed using kappa.
resultsDocumentation completeness for pulmonary nodule characteristics differed across variables (range = 2%-90%, P < .001). Concordance with a thoracic radiologist was 75% for documenting nodule laterality and 29% for size. Follow-up recommendations were in agreement in 67% and 49% of reports when there was lack of completeness and concordance in documenting nodule size, respectively. DISCUSSION: Essential pulmonary nodule characteristics were under-reported, potentially impacting recommendations for pulmonary nodule follow-up.
conclusionLack of documentation of pulmonary nodule characteristics in radiology reports is common, with potential for compromising patient care and clinical decision support tools.
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.