ReviewUltrasound (Leeds, England)2023
Patient experience of imaging reports: A systematic literature review.
Review in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large language models for simplifying radiology reports: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient, public, and clinician evaluations.The Lancet. Digital health · 2026Pooled it
- A multi-metric evaluation of readability in psychiatric discharge summaries.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Radiologist-Patient Communication: A Narrative Review for Clinical Practice.Cureus · 2026Review
- Optimizing patient understanding of spine MRI reports using AI: A prospective single center study.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Written reports are often the sole form of communication from diagnostic imaging. Reports are increasingly being accessed by patients through electronic records. Experiencing medical terminology can be confusing and lead to miscommunication, a decrease in involvement and increased anxiety for patients. Methods: This systematic review was designed to include predefined study selection criteria and was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42020221734). MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus and EThOS were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed against the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 for quality. A segregated approach was used to synthesise data. A thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data were performed, and findings of both syntheses were then integrated. Findings: Twelve articles reporting 13 studies were included. This review found that patients' experiences of imaging reports included positive and negative aspects. The study identified two main themes encompassing both qualitative and quantitative findings. Patients reported their experiences regarding their understanding of reports and self-management. Discussion: Patient understanding of imaging reports is multi factorial including medical terminology, communication aids and errors. Self-management through direct access is important to patients. While receiving bad news is a concern, responsibility for accessing this is accepted. Conclusion: A patient-centred approach to writing imaging reports may help to improve the quality of service, patient experience and wider health outcomes.
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.