Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022
Exploring the value of using patient-oriented MRI reports in clinical practice - a pilot study.
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of different radiology report formats on patient information processing: a systematic review.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing family engagement and acceptance of patient-friendly radiology reports at two academic children's hospitals.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Prostate MRI quality improvement: a Roadmap from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group.European radiology · 2026Review
- Safety and efficacy of privacy-preserving models to create Lay summaries of brain MRI reports.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStandard radiology reports (SRR) are designed to communicate information between doctors. With many patients having instantaneous access to SRRs on patient portals, interpretation without guidance from doctors can cause anxiety and panic. In this pilot study, we designed a patient-centred prostate MRI template report (PACERR) to address some of these challenges and tested whether PACERRs improve patient knowledge and experience. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients booked for clinical prostate MRI were randomly assigned to SRR or SRR + PACERR. Questionnaires included multiple-choice that targeted 4 domains (understanding, usefulness, next steps, emotional experience) hypothesized to improve with patient-centred reports and short answer questions, testing knowledge regarding MRI results. Clinical encounters were observed and recorded to explore whether adding PACERR improved communication. Likert scaled-responses and short-answer questions were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test.
resultsOf the 40 participants, the majority were MRI naïve (70%). Patients receiving a PACERR had higher scores in the categories of patient understanding (mean: 4.17 vs. 3.39, p=0.006), usefulness (mean: 4.58 vs. 3.07, p<0.001), and identifying next steps (mean: 1.89 vs. 3.03, p=0.003) but not emotional experience (mean: 4.18 vs. 3.79, p=0.22). PACERR participants found the layout and design more patient friendly (mean: 4.47 vs. 2.61, p<0.001) and easier to understand (mean: 4.37 vs. 2.38, p<0.001). In the knowledge section, overall, the PACERR arm scored better (87% vs. 56%, p=0.004).
conclusionWith the addition of prostate MRI PACERR, participants had better understanding of their results and felt more prepared to involve themselves in discussions with their doctor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35534628What 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.