Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35885499›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Value of Clinical Information on Radiology Reports in Oncological Imaging.

Felix Schön, Rebecca Sinzig, Felix Walther, Christoph Georg Radosa, Heiner Nebelung, Maria Eberlein-Gonska, Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann, Jens-Peter Kühn, Sophia Freya Ulrike Blum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

9 authors.

Felix SchönInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Rebecca SinzigInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Felix WaltherQuality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5259-124X
Christoph Georg RadosaInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Heiner NebelungInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7303-6691
Maria Eberlein-GonskaQuality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Ralf-Thorsten HoffmannInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Jens-Peter KühnInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Sophia Freya Ulrike BlumInstitute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7096-5199

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiological reporting errors have a direct negative impact on patient treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of clinical information (CI) in radiological reporting of oncological imaging and the dependence on the radiologists’ experience level (EL). Sixty-four patients with several types of carcinomas and twenty patients without tumors were enrolled. Computed tomography datasets acquired in primary or follow-up staging were independently analyzed by three radiologists (R) with different EL (R1: 15 years; R2: 10 years, R3: 1 year). Reading was initially performed without and 3 months later with CI. Overall, diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for primary tumor detection increased significantly when receiving CI from 77% to 87%; p = 0.01 and 73% to 83%; p = 0.01, respectively. All radiologists benefitted from CI; R1: 85% vs. 92%, p = 0.15; R2: 77% vs. 83%, p = 0.33; R3: 70% vs. 86%, p = 0.02. Overall, diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for detecting lymphogenous metastases increased from 80% to 85% (p = 0.13) and 42% to 56% (p = 0.13), for detection of hematogenous metastases from 85% to 86% (p = 0.61) and 46% to 60% (p = 0.15). Specificity remained stable (>90%). Thus, CI in oncological imaging seems to be essential for correct radiological reporting, especially for residents, and should be available for the radiologist whenever possible.

Indexed as

clinical informationcomputed tomographyoncological imagingquality assuranceradiological report

Identifiers

PMID35885499
PMCPMC9321157

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.