ArticleCureus2023
A Comparative Study on the Quality of MRI Reporting in Primary Rectal Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Rectal cancer is a widespread health concern in the UK, and MRI is vital for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment. To enhance the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer, structured reporting can be utilized. Despite the existence of global guidelines and templates, there is a lack of use for standardized templates. Thus, this study seeks to assess and compare the quality of MRI reports in free text style for rectal cancer at a single hospital with international recommendations. Methodology We conducted a retrospective cohort study on adult patients diagnosed with primary rectal cancer and underwent an MRI of the rectum/pelvis. The study aimed to identify and compare the difference in reporting quality between in-house GI radiologists and out-of-hours outsourced reporting agencies. The quality of reporting was identified based on at least fifteen selected features recommended by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and the Society of Abdominal Radiology. The study was performed in a General and Colorectal Surgery Department in the North East of England. Results The study retrospectively analysed 94 reports of primary rectal cancer patients over three years. The quality of reporting was compared between in-house GI radiologists and out-of-hours outsourced reporting agencies. The results showed that in-house radiologists had better reporting quality than outsourced agencies in terms of TNM stage (TNM is a notation system that describes the stage of cancer), predicted extramural venous invasion (EMVI), mesorectal fascia involvement (MRF), T stage, and shape. No statistical significance was found for metastasis, node status, further MRF description, peritoneal reflection, or MRI signal. Conclusion The study found that local GI radiologists had better quality reporting than outsourced agencies for rectal cancer MRI reports, but still missed important features. A unified structured reporting template is recommended to improve the quality of MRI reporting for rectal cancer.
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.