ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2025
Timing and Method of Patient-Provider Communication for Abnormal Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Results in Cirrhosis.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2025. 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
Abstract
purposePatients with cirrhosis undergo frequent abdominal imaging including semiannual hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening, with results released immediately via the patient portal. We characterized time from patient review to patient-provider communication (PPC) for patients with abnormal liver imaging results.
methodsWe identified patients with cirrhosis enrolled in the patient portal with a new abnormal liver lesion (LI-RADS, LR) on ambulatory liver ultrasound (US) or multiphasic computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging findings were grouped into low-risk (US-2, LR-2), intermediate-risk (US-3, LR-3), and high-risk (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, LR-TIV) results. We extracted three date-time events from the electronic health record, including result release to the patient, patient review of the result, and result-related PPC. We compared communication methods and the median time with PPC after patient review of results between groups.
resultsThe cohort included 133 patients (median age, 62 years, 56% male) with 34 (25.6%) low-risk, 61 (45.9%) intermediate-risk, and 38 (28.6%) high-risk results. PPC for high-risk results was predominantly via telephone calls (60.5%), whereas portal messages were most commonly used for low- and intermediate-risk results (61.8% and 45.9%, respectively;
conclusionPortal-based review of abnormal imaging results by patients before provider communication is common, including results concerning a new HCC diagnosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes, such as psychological distress, associated with this method of disclosing cancer-related results.
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.