Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36013293›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022

Structured Reporting in Radiological Settings: Pitfalls and Perspectives.

Vincenza Granata, Federica De Muzio, Carmen Cutolo, Federica Dell'Aversana, Francesca Grassi, Roberta Grassi, Igino Simonetti, Federico Bruno, Pierpaolo Palumbo, Giuditta Chiti and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

12 authors.

Vincenza GranataDivision of Radiology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6601-3221
Federica De MuzioDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences "V. Tiberio", University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.
Carmen CutoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84084 Salerno, Italy.
Federica Dell'AversanaDivision of Radiology, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80127 Naples, Italy.
Francesca GrassiDivision of Radiology, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80127 Naples, Italy.
Roberta GrassiDivision of Radiology, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80127 Naples, Italy.
Igino SimonettiDivision of Radiology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale-IRCCS di Napoli, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Federico BrunoItalian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), SIRM Foundation, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1444-2585
Pierpaolo PalumboItalian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), SIRM Foundation, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1514-0092
Giuditta ChitiDivision of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, 50134 Florence, Italy.
Ginevra DantiItalian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), SIRM Foundation, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7109-8119
Roberta FuscoMedical Oncology Division, Igea SpA, 80013 Napoli, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this manuscript is to give an overview of structured reporting in radiological settings. MATERIALS AND

methodThis article is a narrative review on structured reporting in radiological settings. Particularly, limitations and future perspectives are analyzed.

resultsThe radiological report is a communication tool for the referring physician and the patients. It was conceived as a free text report (FTR) to allow radiologists to have their own individuality in the description of the radiological findings. However, this form could suffer from content, style, and presentation discrepancies, with a probability of transferring incorrect radiological data. Quality, datafication/quantification, and accessibility represent the three main goals in moving from FTRs to structured reports (SRs). In fact, the quality is related to standardization, which aims to improve communication and clarification. Moreover, a "structured" checklist, which allows all the fundamental items for a particular radiological study to be reported and permits the connection of the radiological data with clinical features, allowing a personalized medicine. With regard to accessibility, since radiological reports can be considered a source of research data, SR allows data mining to obtain new biomarkers and to help the development of new application domains, especially in the field of radiomics.

conclusionsStructured reporting could eliminate radiologist individuality, allowing a standardized approach.

Indexed as

lexiconqualityradiologystandardizationtumor

Identifiers

PMID36013293
PMCPMC9409900

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.