Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38975542›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Structured Reporting of Superficial Soft Tissue Masses on Ultrasonography: A Closed-Loop Clinical Audit From a Tertiary Care Hospital in Pakistan.

Muhammad Ahsan Asif, Abdul Subhan Zahid, Ayesha Naseer, Muhammad Ubaid Ullah Khan, Zaeem Bhatti, Muhammad Waris W Khan, Muhammad Faraz K Nizami, Khunsha Shehzad, Usama Afraz Younas, Haseeb Ahmad and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

12 authors.

Muhammad Ahsan AsifRadiology and Medical Imaging, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Abdul Subhan ZahidSurgery, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Ayesha NaseerRadiology and Medical Imaging, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Muhammad Ubaid Ullah KhanSurgery, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Zaeem BhattiSurgery, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Muhammad Waris W KhanRadiology and Medical Imaging, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Muhammad Faraz K NizamiSurgery, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Khunsha ShehzadRadiology and Medical Imaging, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Usama Afraz YounasSurgery, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Haseeb AhmadSurgery, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.
Haseeb Mehmood QadriNeurosurgery, Punjab Institute of Neurosciences, Lahore, PAK.
Saira BilalRadiology and Medical Imaging, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

auditpakistanquality improvement studyradiologyresearchresidentssuperficial massultrasoundultrasound reporting

Identifiers

PMID38975542
PMCPMC11227745

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.