Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33572502›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Structured Reporting Using CEUS LI-RADS for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)-Impact and Advantages on Report Integrity, Quality and Interdisciplinary Communication.

Thomas Geyer, Johannes Rübenthaler, Constantin Marschner, Malte von Hake, Matthias P Fabritius, Matthias F Froelich, Thomas Huber, Dominik Nörenberg, Johannes Rückel, Maximilian Weniger and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas GeyerDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Johannes RübenthalerDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0832-5662
Constantin MarschnerDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Malte von HakeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Matthias P FabritiusDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3471-4701
Matthias F FroelichDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8501-2147
Thomas HuberDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Dominik NörenbergDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7726-9006
Johannes RückelDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Maximilian WenigerDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5178-8358
Corinna MartensDepartment of Medicine II, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Laura SabelDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Dirk-André ClevertDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Vincent SchwarzeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, 81377 Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur retrospective single-center study aims to evaluate the impact of structured reporting (SR) using a CEUS LI-RADS template on report quality compared to conventional free-text reporting (FTR) in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

methodsWe included 50 patients who underwent CEUS for HCC staging. FTR created after these examinations were compared to SR retrospectively generated by using template-based online software with clickable decision trees. The reports were evaluated regarding report completeness, information extraction, linguistic quality and overall report quality by two readers specialized in internal medicine and visceral surgery.

resultsSR significantly increased report completeness with at least one key feature missing in 31% of FTR vs. 2% of SR (

conclusionsUsing SR instead of conventional FTR increases the overall quality of reports in CEUS examinations of HCC patients and may represent a valuable tool to facilitate clinical decision-making and improve interdisciplinary communication in the future.

Indexed as

CEUSclinical decision-makingcontrast-enhanced ultrasoundhepatocellular carcinomastructured reporting

Identifiers

PMID33572502
PMCPMC7866827
OpenAlexW3126650274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.