ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2022
Structured report improves radiology residents' performance in reporting chest high-resolution computed tomography: a study in patients with connective tissue disease.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Classifying diagnostic pitfalls in juxtapleural CT lesions: A root cause.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Impact of an expert-derived, quick hands-on tool on classifying pulmonary hypertension in chest computed tomography: a study on inexperienced readers using RAPID-CT-PH.La Radiologia medica · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the performance of radiology residents (RRs) when using a dedicated structured report (SR) template for chest HRCT in patients with suspected connective tissue disease-interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD), compared to the traditional narrative report (NR). METHODS We retrospectively evaluated 50 HRCT exams in patients with suspected CTD-ILD. A chest-devoted radiologist reported all the HRCT exams as the reference standard, pointing out pulmonary fibrosis findings (i.e., honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, reticulation, and volume loss), presence and pattern of ILD, and possible other diagnoses. We divided four RRs into two groups according to their expertise level. In each group, RRs reported all HRCT examinations alternatively with NR or SR, noting each report's reporting time. The Cohen's Kappa, Wilcoxon, and McNemar tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS Regarding the pulmonary fibrosis findings, we found higher agreement between RRs and the reference standard reader when using SR than NR, regardless of their expertise level, except for volume loss.RRs' accuracy for "other diagnosis" was higher when using SR than NR, moving from 0.48 to 0.66 in the novel group (p = 0.035) and from 0.44 to 0.80 in the expertise group (p < 0.001). No differences in accuracy were found between ILD presence and ILD pattern. The reporting time was significantly lower (p = 0.001) when using SR than NR. CONCLUSION SR is of value in increasing the reporting of critical chest HRCT findings in the complex CTD-ILD scenario and should be used early and systematically during the residency.
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.