ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022
Synoptic reporting accuracy for computed tomography pulmonary arteriography among patients suspected of pulmonary embolism.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing a Resource-Light and Low-Code Large Language Model System for Information Extraction from Mammography Reports: A Pilot Study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Derivation and external validation of a portable method to identify patients with pulmonary embolism from radiology reports: The READ-PE algorithm.Thrombosis research · 2024Article
- Synoptic reporting accuracy for computed tomography pulmonary arteriography among patients suspected of pulmonary embolism.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Structured reporting is an efficient and replicable method of presenting diagnostic results that eliminates variability inherent in narrative descriptive reporting and may improve clinical decisions. Synoptic element reporting can generate discrete coded data that then may inform clinical decision support and trigger downstream actions in computerized electronic health records. Objective: Limited evidence exists for use of synoptic reporting for computed tomography pulmonary arteriography (CTPA) among patients suspected of pulmonary embolism. We reported the accuracy of synoptic reporting for the outcome of pulmonary embolism among patients who presented to an integrated health care system with CTPA performed for suspected pulmonary embolism. Methods: Structured radiology reports with embedded synoptic elements were implemented for all CTPA examinations on March 1, 2018. Four hundred CTPA reports between January 4, 2019 and July 30, 2020 (200 reports each for which synoptic reporting recorded the presence or absence of pulmonary embolism [PE]) were selected at random. One non-diagnostic study was excluded from analysis. We then assessed the accuracy of synoptic reporting compared with the gold standard of manual chart review. Results: Synoptic reporting and manual review agreed in 99.2% of patients undergoing CTPA for suspected PE, agreed on the presence of PE in 196 of 199 (98.5%) cases, the absence of PE in 200 of 200 (100%) cases with a sensitivity of 87.6% (76.1-96.1) a specificity of 99.9% (99.7%-100%), a positive predictive value of 99.5% (98.1-100), and a negative predictive value of 98% (95.7%-99.5%). Conclusion: The overall rate of agreement was 99.2%, but we observed an unacceptable false-negative rate for clinical reliance on synoptic element reporting in isolation from dictated reports.
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.