ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2021
Structured reporting of CT or MRI for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: usefulness for clinical planning and interdisciplinary communication.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: from detection to personalized treatments.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Diffusion-weighted imaging as an imaging biomarker for assessing survival of patients with intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the content and communication between the radiologist and the clinicians for treatment planning of structured reports (SRs) and narrative reports (NRs) for reporting CT/MRI findings in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND
methodThis retrospective study included 54 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who underwent CT/MRI before ERCP or surgery. For all patients, we generated both NRs and SRs for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and compared the number of key features between NRs and SRs. In addition, three clinicians performed a questionnaire evaluation that included three questions regarding assessment of the sufficiency of information for surgical or procedural planning, the effort required for information extraction, and the report quality rated on a Likert scale.
resultsSRs included significantly more predefined key features (6.89 ± 0.31) than NRs (5.87 ± 0.70) (p < 0.001). SRs provided greater sufficiency of information for clinical planning than NRs (89.9% vs. 18.5% of the cases, respectively; p < 0.001). Extraction of information was easier from SRs than NRs (94.4% vs. 9.3%, respectively) (p < 0.001). SRs received a higher overall report quality rating (5.96 ± 0.19) than NRs (4.31 ± 0.77) (p < 0.001).
conclusionsSRs of CT/MRI findings for hilar cholangiocarcinoma can reveal more predefined key features, provide more sufficiency of information, and yield higher satisfaction levels, in comparison with NRs.
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.