Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37000450›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Development and Assessment of an Information Technology Intervention to Improve the Clarity of Radiologist Follow-up Recommendations.

Jeffrey P Guenette, Neena Kapoor, Ronilda Lacson, Elyse Lynch, Nooshin Abbasi, Sonali P Desai, Sunil Eappen, Ramin Khorasani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Patient Photograph Association With Radiologist Recommendations for Additional Imaging.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Actionability of Recommendations for Additional Imaging in Head and Neck Radiology.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Jeffrey P GuenetteCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Neena KapoorCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ronilda LacsonCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Elyse LynchCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nooshin AbbasiCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sonali P DesaiCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sunil EappenCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ramin KhorasaniCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: It is challenging to ensure timely performance of radiologist-recommended additional imaging when radiologist recommendation language is incomplete or ambiguous. Objective: To evaluate whether voluntary use of an information technology tool with forced structured entry of recommendation attributes was associated with improved completeness of recommendations for additional imaging over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of imaging report data was performed at an academic quaternary care center in Boston, Massachusetts, and included consecutive adults with radiology examinations performed from September 12 to 13, 2019 (taxonomy validation), October 14 to 17, 2019 (before intervention), April 5 to 7, 2021 (1 week after intervention), and April 4 to 7, 2022 (1 year after intervention), with reports containing recommendations for additional imaging. A radiologist scored the 3 groups (preintervention group, 1-week postintervention group, and 1-year postintervention group) of 336 consecutive radiology reports (n = 1008) with recommendations for additional imaging. Intervention: Final implementation on March 27, 2021, of a voluntary closed-loop communication tool embedded in radiologist clinical workflow that required structured entry of recommendation attributes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The a priori primary outcome was completeness of recommendations for additional imaging, defined in a taxonomy created by a multidisciplinary expert panel. To validate the taxonomy, 2 radiologists independently reviewed and scored language attributes as present or absent in 247 consecutive radiology reports containing recommendations for additional imaging. Agreement was assessed with Cohen κ. Recommendation completeness over time was compared with with 1-sided Fisher exact tests and significance set at P < .05. Results: Radiology-related information for consecutive radiology reports from the 4 time periods was collected from the radiology department data warehouse, which does not include data on patient demographic characteristics or other nonimaging patient medical information. The panel defined 5 recommendation language attributes: complete (contains imaging modality, time frame, and rationale), ambiguous (equivocal, vague language), conditional (qualifying language), multiplicity (multiple options), and alternate (language favoring a different examination to that ordered). Two radiologists had more than 90% agreement (κ > 0.8) for these attributes. Completeness with use of the tool increased more than 3-fold, from 14% (46 of 336) before the intervention to 46% (153 of 336) (P < .001) 1 year after intervention; completeness in the corresponding free-text report language increased from 14% (46 of 336) before the intervention to 25% (85 of 336) (P < .001) 1 year after the intervention. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that supplementing free-text dictation with voluntary use of a structured entry tool was associated with improved completeness of radiologist recommendations for additional imaging as assessed by an internally validated taxonomy. Future research is needed to assess the association with timely performance of clinically necessary recommendations and diagnostic errors. The taxonomy can be used to evaluate and build interventions to modify radiologist reporting behaviors.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingInformation TechnologyAdultCohort StudiesFollow-Up StudiesHumansRadiologists

Identifiers

PMID37000450
PMCPMC10066458

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.