Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39506985›Full record

ArticleSA journal of radiology2024

Survey on the radiology report at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital: Clinician and radiologist perspectives.

Liane Thormahlen, Robyn M Wessels, Ilana M Viljoen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SA journal of radiology, 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. Regional anaesthesia in the emergency centre: Knowledge, attitudes and practices of doctors in the Western Cape, South Africa.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Liane ThormahlenDivision of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Radiation Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2604-4872
Robyn M WesselsDivision of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Radiation Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9144-7873
Ilana M ViljoenDivision of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Radiation Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3954-8471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The radiology report is the primary means of conveying imaging findings between radiologists and clinicians. As a result, clinician satisfaction with the radiology report is an indicator of its quality and clinical relevance. It is crucial to identify factors that can enhance the radiology report in order to improve service delivery. Objectives: This study evaluates clinician and radiologist opinions, preferences and clinician utilisation of the radiology report. Method: Mixed quantitative and qualitative survey questionnaires were distributed in-person and online from December 2022 to February 2023 to a total of 287 clinicians and 43 independent medical practitioners specialising in radiology. Results: A total of 73.0% of radiologists and 56.5% of clinicians expressed satisfaction with the radiology reports. Additionally, 72.0% of radiologists expressed dissatisfaction with the history provided on the referral forms. It was found that 87.6% of clinicians read the radiology report, while 26.2% reviewed the radiological imaging without referring to it. Interestingly, 77.8% of clinicians preferred itemised listed reports, whereas 53.8% of radiologists preferred reports in paragraph format. It was discovered that 69.6% of radiologists and 65.4% of clinicians preferred a standardised reporting format. Conclusion: More than half of the clinicians and most of the radiologists expressed satisfaction with the radiology report. Both clinicians and radiologists showed a preference for a structured reporting format. A crucial element in constructing a good radiology report was having a relevant clinical history. The radiologist continued to be the preferred professional for interpreting radiological imaging. Contribution: This survey was a good starting point for improving communication between clinicians and radiologists. This will ultimately result in reports that are more useful to clinicians and radiologists who have a better understanding of what should be included in reports and how they should be structured.

Indexed as

clinical historyclinicianopinionpreferencesradiologyreportsurveyutilisation

Identifiers

PMID39506985
PMCPMC11538132

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.