Comparing thoracic and abdominal subspecialists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT.

Anna H Zhao, Daniel I Glazer, Mark M Hammer, Kristine S Burk, Pamela J DiPiro, Ramin Khorasani

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Anna H ZhaoCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, One Brigham Circle, 1620 Tremont Street, Third Floor, Suite 3010, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9948-4356

Daniel I GlazerCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, One Brigham Circle, 1620 Tremont Street, Third Floor, Suite 3010, Boston, MA, 02120, USA. dglazer@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1547-5215

Mark M HammerCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, One Brigham Circle, 1620 Tremont Street, Third Floor, Suite 3010, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1700-7984

Kristine S BurkCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, One Brigham Circle, 1620 Tremont Street, Third Floor, Suite 3010, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6129-8766

Pamela J DiPiroCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, One Brigham Circle, 1620 Tremont Street, Third Floor, Suite 3010, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.

Ramin KhorasaniCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, One Brigham Circle, 1620 Tremont Street, Third Floor, Suite 3010, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2681-3574

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare thoracic and abdominal radiologists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT.

methodsThis Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective study was performed at a large academic medical center with subspecialty radiology divisions. We used a combination of natural language processing and manual reviews to identify chest CT reports with and without abdominal findings that were interpreted by thoracic radiologists in 2019. Three random samples of reports were reviewed by two subspecialty trained abdominal radiologists for their agreement with thoracic radiologists' reporting: abdominal findings with follow-up recommendation (Group 1), abdominal findings without follow-up recommendation (Group 2), and no abdominal findings reported (Group 3). Primary outcome was agreement between thoracic and abdominal radiologists for the need for follow-up of abdominal findings. Secondary outcomes were agreement between subspecialists for the presence of abdominal findings and referring clinician adherence to recommendations. Fischer's exact test was used to compare proportions.

resultsAbdominal radiologists agreed with need for follow-up in 48.5% (16/33) of Group 1 cases and agreed follow-up was not necessary for 100% (34/34) of Group 2 cases (p < 0.001). Abdominal radiologists identified abdominal findings in 31.4% (11/35) of Group 3 cases, none of which required follow-up. Referring clinician adherence to thoracic radiologist follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings was 13/33 (39.4%).

conclusionAbdominal radiologists frequently disagreed with thoracic radiologist recommendations for follow-up of abdominal findings on chest CT. Chest radiologists may consider abdominal subspecialty consultation or clinical decision support to reduce unnecessary imaging.

Indexed as

RadiologyTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansRadiographyRadiologistsRetrospective StudiesAbdominal findingsCross-subspecialty workflowsSubspecialty radiologists

Identifiers

PMID36732409

DOI10.2214/AJR.18.19958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.