ReviewThe British journal of radiology2025
Improving radiology reporting locally and globally: who, how, and why?
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between radiological CDSS availability and quality of imaging referrals graded using RI-RADS.iScience · 2026Article
- Consistency in knee MRI reporting templates: an ISS survey and common data element analysis.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Radiology report quality improvement through structured provider feedback: a data-driven initiative.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Automated classification of clinical T staging pulmonary oncology from chest CT reports: a natural language processing framework for real-world data utilization.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The radiology report is the communication from radiologist to referrer, used to inform prognosis and guide patient management. The report is the final step in a process which is influenced by the information on the referral, image quality, the reporting environment, and appropriate detection and interpretation of findings by the radiologist. It should present accurate, complete information in a way that can be easily understood. Even small improvements in any of these areas can have a significant impact on the average quality of radiology reports, with potential impact on vast numbers of patients across the globe. How do we train our future referrers to understand the complexities of imaging and write better referrals? How do we improve image quality as close to source as possible by engaging with equipment vendors? How can we make it easier for all radiologists to have access to the latest guidelines and use reporting templates where appropriate? Every radiologist has a role to play, with possible actions ranging from individual choice to departmental policies and global collaboration. The diseases we diagnose are the same, the equipment similar and knowledge freely available. All our patients deserve the best report we can provide.
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.