Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37763797›Full record

ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2023

Advancements in Standardizing Radiological Reports: A Comprehensive Review.

Filippo Pesapane, Priyan Tantrige, Paolo De Marco, Serena Carriero, Fabio Zugni, Luca Nicosia, Anna Carla Bozzini, Anna Rotili, Antuono Latronico, Francesca Abbate and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Use and Perceptions of Oncology CT Structured Reports in Australia and New Zealand.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Filippo PesapaneBreast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0374-5054
Priyan TantrigeDepartment of Radiology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London SE5 9RS, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9366-0785
Paolo De MarcoMedical Physics Unit, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8264-7219
Serena CarrieroPostgraduate School of Radiodiagnostics, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2583-4215
Fabio ZugniDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.
Luca NicosiaBreast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3979-8075
Anna Carla BozziniBreast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.
Anna RotiliBreast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9439-9275
Antuono LatronicoBreast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.
Francesca AbbateBreast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.
Daniela OriggiMedical Physics Unit, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1338-312X
Sonia SanticchiaFoundation IRCCS Cà Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe PetraliaDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.
Gianpaolo CarrafielloFoundation IRCCS Cà Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Enrico CassanoBreast Imaging Division, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3437-8939

Funding

Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente and 5x1000 funds
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standardized radiological reports stimulate debate in the medical imaging field. This review paper explores the advantages and challenges of standardized reporting. Standardized reporting can offer improved clarity and efficiency of communication among radiologists and the multidisciplinary team. However, challenges include limited flexibility, initially increased time and effort, and potential user experience issues. The efforts toward standardization are examined, encompassing the establishment of reporting templates, use of common imaging lexicons, and integration of clinical decision support tools. Recent technological advancements, including multimedia-enhanced reporting and AI-driven solutions, are discussed for their potential to improve the standardization process. Organizations such as the ACR, ESUR, RSNA, and ESR have developed standardized reporting systems, templates, and platforms to promote uniformity and collaboration. However, challenges remain in terms of workflow adjustments, language and format variability, and the need for validation. The review concludes by presenting a set of ten essential rules for creating standardized radiology reports, emphasizing clarity, consistency, and adherence to structured formats.

Indexed as

RadiologyCommunicationHumansLanguageRadiographyWorkflowAIradiologyradiology reportradiomicsstandardizationstructured report

Identifiers

PMID37763797
PMCPMC10535385

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.