ArticleCureus2024
Structured Reporting of Superficial Soft Tissue Masses on Ultrasonography: A Closed-Loop Clinical Audit From a Tertiary Care Hospital in Pakistan.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Among all the modalities of diagnostic radiology, ultrasonography is considered the least invasive one. However, this benefit usually comes at the cost of its subjective evaluation since it is purely a dynamic diagnostic modality. Thus, instead of ultrasonography, most clinicians usually rely on the report written by the radiologist. Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical practices of ultrasound reporting of superficial soft tissue masses. Materials and methods A closed-loop retrospective and prospective study was conducted at the Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore between December 2023 and March 2024. In the pre-intervention phase, a randomly collected sample of 100 ultrasound reports documenting superficial soft tissue masses were included in the study and judged against standard criteria set by the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR). The intervention phase included regular presentations, identification of problems, and designing of preformed reporting forms. Post-intervention assessments were based on the judgment of 100 ultrasound reports in each cycle twice. Intervention and post-intervention assessments were done twice to correct the ongoing practices. Results During the pre-intervention phase, the ultrasound reports issued by the department of study showed only 41.5% compliance with the RCR structured reporting guidelines. However, after the first and second post-intervention phases, this percentage increased up to 98.3%. Overall, we observed a compliance difference of 56.5% between the pre-intervention and second post-intervention phases. Conclusion Integration of methods, such as briefing the residents on RCR guidelines, displaying parameters, and making structured report templates available, can greatly increase adherence to RCR guidelines for structured ultrasonography reporting. It also greatly enhances the comprehensiveness and reliability of ultrasonography reports for clinicians. Clinical audits should be routinely practiced in the settings of radiology.
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.