Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34652520›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2022

Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential.

J Martijn Nobel, Koos van Geel, Simon G F Robben

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Structured reporting in knee MRI.Skeletal radiology · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. RADS classification systems for bone tumors: current status and where do we go from here?Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

J Martijn NobelDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Postbox 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands. martijn.nobel@mumc.nl.
Koos van GeelDepartment of Educational Development and Research and School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Simon G F RobbenDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Postbox 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesStructured reporting (SR) in radiology reporting is suggested to be a promising tool in clinical practice. In order to implement such an emerging innovation, it is necessary to verify that radiology reporting can benefit from SR. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to explore the level of evidence of structured reporting in radiology. Additionally, this review provides an overview on the current status of SR in radiology.

methodsA narrative systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the syntax 'radiol*' AND 'structur*' AND 'report*'. Structured reporting was divided in SR level 1, structured layout (use of templates and checklists), and SR level 2, structured content (a drop-down menu, point-and-click or clickable decision trees). Two reviewers screened the search results and included all quantitative experimental studies that discussed SR in radiology. A thematic analysis was performed to appraise the evidence level.

resultsThe search resulted in 63 relevant full text articles out of a total of 8561 articles. Thematic analysis resulted in 44 SR level 1 and 19 level 2 reports. Only one paper was scored as highest level of evidence, which concerned a double cohort study with randomized trial design.

conclusionThe level of evidence for implementing SR in radiology is still low and outcomes should be interpreted with caution. KEY POINTS: • Structured reporting is increasingly being used in radiology, especially in abdominal and neuroradiological CT and MRI reports. • SR can be subdivided into structured layout (SR level 1) and structured content (SR level 2), in which the first is defined as being a template in which the reporter has to report; the latter is an IT-based manner in which the content of the radiology report can be inserted and displayed into the report. • Despite the extensive amount of research on the subject of structured reporting, the level of evidence is low.

Indexed as

RadiologyRadiology Information SystemsCohort StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiographyMagnetic resonance imagingMultidetector computed tomographyNeoplasm stagingRadiologyReports

Identifiers

PMID34652520
PMCPMC8921035

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.