ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2021
Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography in the Staging of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus Proposal.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- CT acquisition protocols by pathology, SIRM position paper part 2 (Abdominal and Oncologic Imaging, Urology, Paediatric).La Radiologia medica · 2026Guideline
- Perceptions of radiologists on structured reporting for cancer imaging-a survey by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI).European radiology · 2024Article
- ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology-update 2023.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Structured reporting of computed tomography in the polytrauma patient assessment: a Delphi consensus proposal.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Risk Assessment and Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2023Review
- Risk Assessment and Pancreatic Cancer: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Cancers · 2023Review
- Oral presentation assessment and image reading behaviour on brain computed tomography reading in novice clinical learners: an eye-tracking study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs): a radiomic model to predict tumor grade.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- Structured Reporting in Radiological Settings: Pitfalls and Perspectives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Complications Risk Assessment and Imaging Findings of Thermal Ablation Treatment in Liver Cancers: What the Radiologist Should Expect.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams. Materials and Methods: A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A Modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. Results: The final SR version was built by including n=16 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n=13 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n=8 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n=17 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 54 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received more than a good rating: a mean value of 4.7 and range of 4.2-5.0 in the first round and a mean value 4.9 and range of 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a poor 0.57: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.7 (range 1-5) and 728 (mean value 52.00 and standard deviation 2.83), respectively. In the second round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a good 0.82: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 760 (mean value 54.29 and standard deviation 1.64), respectively. Conclusions: The present SR, based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise following in-depth discussion between expert radiologists in gastro-enteric and oncological imaging, derived from a multidisciplinary agreement between a radiologist, medical oncologist and surgeon in order to obtain the most appropriate communication tool for referring physicians.
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.