ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Standardizing Workflow, Patient Care, and Reimbursement for Radiology Second Opinions.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. 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
Second opinions in radiology are crucial for accurate diagnosis and patient management but often lack standardization, leading to inefficiencies and suboptimal reimbursement. We redesigned the second opinion workflow leveraging existing tools in the EMR. Summary statistics as well as post-implementation surveys were conducted among ordering providers and radiologists to gauge the process. Reimbursement data from August 2021 to October 2022 was also analyzed. The Abdomen division accounted for 47% of second opinion exams, followed by Neuroradiology at 26%, Chest at 17%, Nuclear Medicine at 9%, and MSK at 1%. CT scans comprised 64%, MR 26%, NM 9%, and US 1%. Survey participants reported an improvement in user-friendliness ratings for the second opinion process from 2 to 4.4 (p < 0.07), with substantial positive trends among ordering providers (Cohen's d = 2.00). Satisfaction with perceived timeliness of report availability was high across both groups, and radiologists perceived workflow efficiency improved from 2.7 to 4 (p = 0.036). The new workflow achieved a 91.9% collection success rate. Standardizing the second opinion workflow enhances operational efficiency, user satisfaction and reimbursement, thereby improving patient care.
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.