ReviewPediatric radiology2021
Providing second-opinion interpretations of pediatric imaging: embracing the call for value-added medicine.
Review in Pediatric radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- On-call or not on-call, what difference does it make in paediatric radiology?Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Collaborating with non-radiological clinical colleagues.Pediatric radiology · 2025Review
- Sub specialization and centralization of pediatric neuro-oncology services: a strategy to improve outcomes in low-resource settings.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The value of obtaining second-opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists has been established. In pediatric radiology, this has primarily been explored in general terms, comparing tertiary pediatric radiologists' interpretations to referral reads. In adults, second reads by subspecialty radiologists have been shown to yield changes in patient management, including in neuroradiology, musculoskeletal radiology and oncological radiology. Here, we examine second-opinion reads by pediatric radiologists by reviewing the pediatric and adult subspecialty literature. We also present our experience in providing subspecialty outside reads, summarizing lessons learned in implementing a system for outside interpretations into a pediatric radiology practice.
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.