ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Direct communication between radiologists and patients improves the quality of imaging reports.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Humor in radiological breast cancer screening: a way of improving patient service?Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022Trial
- The CLEAR model: a structured communication protocol for breast radiologists.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- ESUR consensus MRI for endometriosis: indications, reporting, and classifications.European radiology · 2025Article
- Foreign body-induced knee synovitis: importance of history by the radiologist.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
- Radiology Access in Rural Germany: A Nationwide Survey on Outpatient Imaging and Teleradiology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The radiologist as an independent "third party" to the patient and clinicians in the era of generative AI.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Reasons why it is time to change imaging guidelines on endometriosis.European radiology · 2024Article
- Patient Engagement in Neuroradiology: A Narrative Review and Case Studies.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Review
- Adoption, orchestration, and deployment of artificial intelligence within the National Health Service-facilitators and barriers: an expert roundtable discussion.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- How to prepare for a bright future of radiology in Europe.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- [Sustainability and climate protection : Implications on patient-centered care in radiology].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- [Patient-centered vs. employee-centered radiology : Does this pose a conflict?]Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Emerging MR methods for improved diagnosis of prostate cancer by multiparametric MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Value-based radiology: what is the ESR doing, and what should we do in the future?Insights into imaging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe investigate in what percentage of cases and to what extent radiological reports change when radiologists directly communicate with patients after imaging examinations.
methodsOne hundred twenty-two consecutive outpatients undergoing MRI examinations at a single center were prospectively included. Radiological reports of the patients were drafted by two radiologists in consensus using only the clinical information that was made available by the referring physicians. Thereafter, one radiologist talked directly with the patient and recorded the duration of the conversation. Afterwards, the additional information from the patient was used to reevaluate the imaging studies in consensus. The radiologists determined whether the radiological report changed based on additional information and, if yes, to what extent. The degree of change was graded on a 4-point Likert scale (1, non-relevant findings, to 4, highly relevant findings).
resultsFollowing direct communication (duration 170.9 ± 53.9 s), the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%) were changed. Of the 52 patients, the degree of change was classified as grade 1 for 8 patients (15.4 %), grade 2 for 27 patients (51.9%), grade 3 for 13 patients (25%), and grade 4 for 4 patients (7.7%). The reasons leading to changes were missing clinical information in 50 cases (96.2%) and the lack of additional external imaging in 2 cases (3.8%).
conclusionsRadiologists should be aware that a lack of accurate information from the clinician can lead to incorrect radiological reports or diagnosis. Radiologists should communicate directly with patients, especially when the provided information is unclear, as it may significantly alter the radiological report. KEY POINTS: • Direct communication between radiologists and patients for an average of 170's resulted in a change in the radiological reports of 52 patients (42.6%). • Of the 42.6% of cases where the reports were changed, the alterations were highly relevant (grades 3 and 4) in 32.7%, indicating major changes with significant impact towards patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33909134What 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.