ArticleScientific reports2024
Impact of an online reference system on the diagnosis of rare or atypical abdominal tumors and lesions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to evaluate whether an online reference system (ORS, STATdx Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) impacts finding the histologically confirmed diagnosis of rare or atypical abdominal tumors and lesions in radiologic imaging. In total, 101 patients with rare tumor entities or lesions and atypical manifestations of common tumors were enrolled retrospectively. Blinded readings were performed by four radiologists with varying levels of experience, who reported on: (a) correct diagnosis (CD), (b) time needed to find the diagnosis, and (c) diagnostic confidence, initially without followed by the assistance of the ORS. The experienced reader (3 years of experience post-residency, CD 49.5%), as well as the advanced reader with 1 year of experience post-residency (CD 43.6%), and a resident with 5 years of experience (CD 46.5%) made the correct diagnosis more frequently compared to the less experienced reader (CD 25.7%). A significant improvement in making the correct diagnosis was only achieved by the advanced reader, the resident with 5 years of experience (CD with ORS 58.4%; p < 0.001). The advanced reader with 1 year of experience post-residency improved slightly (CD ORS 47.5%). The experienced reader (CD ORS 50.5%) and the less experienced reader (CD ORS 27.7%) did not improve significantly. The overall subjective confidence increased significantly when ORS was used (3.2 ± 0.9 vs. 3.8 ± 0.9; p < 0.001). While the ORS had a positive impact on making the correct diagnosis throughout all readers, it favored radiologists with more clinical experience rather than inexperienced residents. Moreover, the ORS increased the diagnostic confidence of all radiologists significantly. In conclusion, the ORS had no significant impact on the diagnosis of rare or atypical abdominal tumors and lesions except for one reader. The greatest benefit is the increase in diagnostic confidence.
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.