ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Advancing MRI diagnostic practices in rectal cancer: exploring the impact of web-based multi-reader study participation.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore the impact of participation in web-based validation studies on personal and institutional diagnostic practices for MRI rectal cancer (re)staging.
methodsAn online questionnaire was distributed to radiologists who had participated in one or more previously conducted and published multi-reader validation studies focused on rectal cancer staging and response evaluation. The questionnaire included general questions about the web-based platform used for these studies, as well as study-specific questions addressing the tools under investigation, such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), different MRI response grading systems, and the sigmoid take-off (STO).
resultsAmong 25 respondents from 14 countries, 52% reported significant improvements in their personal reporting practice as a result of their study participation; 36% also observed a significant impact on local diagnostic practices in their institution after discussing the study results with their colleagues. Key reported effects included increased use of DWI for restaging, increased use of the STO to discern rectal from sigmoid cancer, enhanced confidence in using diagnostic tools and grading systems, greater adoption of structured reporting templates, and more frequent integration of organ-preserving treatment considerations into radiological assessments. Respondents also emphasized the importance of receiving feedback to maximize the educational benefits of participating in such studies.
conclusionWeb-based validation studies can positively influence radiologists' reporting practices, fostering the adoption of novel diagnostic tools through education and collaborative knowledge sharing. Future studies should focus on incorporating consistent feedback mechanisms and integrating specific training modules to maximize the impact of these platforms on clinical practice.
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.