ArticleCureus2022
Assessment of the Response to Abdominal and Pelvic Computed Tomography Report Recommendations: A Single-Center, Retrospective, Chart Review Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The radiology report is the primary form of communication between the radiologists and referring clinicians. It is a structured document containing several key components pertaining to the interpretation of radiological examinations and may require the addition of follow-up imaging recommendations to optimize patient outcomes. This study aims to determine whether follow-up imaging recommendations are being acknowledged and acted upon by referrers. Methods This retrospective study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital. Prerecorded BESTCare data of patients who underwent abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) scans between October 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, and received recommendations for further evaluation were collected after obtaining ethical approval from the local authority. Data of patients younger than 14 years old, patients who did not receive a recommendation, and patients who had CT scans that were uploaded to the BESTCare system but were performed outside the institution were excluded. The collected data were recorded in a password-protected Microsoft Excel file for further analysis. Results A total of 523 report recommendations from 422 abdominal and pelvic CT reports were analyzed. The most common organs indicated for CT scan evaluation were the breast (N = 54, 10.33%), kidney (N = 46, 8.80%), lymph node (N = 36, 6.88%), and colon (N = 33, 6.31%). The most common type of further evaluation recommended was further imaging (N = 410, 78.39%). A total of 278 (53.15%) recommendations were not performed, with 199 (71.58%) not having a documented rationale for noncompliance. Conclusion The majority of the follow-up imaging recommendations to ordering physicians were not carried out. This study highlights the need for notification and audit systems to monitor compliance with follow-up recommendations. Improving the communication between radiologists and referring physicians is key to optimizing patient healthcare.
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.