ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Structured vs. unstructured MRI reporting for lumbar spine degenerative conditions: a comparative evaluation using a custom radiology template.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare diagnostic performance and reporting efficiency for evaluating degenerative musculoskeletal conditions of the lumbar spine of a structured template against the free-narrative approach.
methodsWe developed a structured reporting template through interdisciplinary consensus assessing the key categories spinal canal stenosis, disc herniation, neuroforaminal stenosis, recess stenosis, alignment, and activated arthrosis. A 2nd-year radiology resident and a senior radiologist read the lumbar spine MRI of seventy-eight patients using the structured and free-narrative report reading approach in a blinded manner. The reports of a third, subspecialized senior radiologist in consensus with the initial clinical reports constituted the gold standard. We statistically compared the primary outcomes reporting time, diagnostic accuracy in the key categories, and diagnostic confidence between structured and free-narrative report reading.
resultsStructured reporting significantly reduced reporting time (8 vs. 21 min) and diagnostic confidence of the resident. In reporting of the resident, the structured approach yielded higher accuracy in neuroforaminal stenosis (p = 0.0002), higher sensitivity in spinal canal stenosis (p = 0.0156) and disc herniation (p = 0.0010), but lower specifity and accuracy in disc herniations (p = 0.0001, and p = 0.0011). The senior radiologist performed overall better with free-narrative report reading, mainly due to better specifity.
conclusionsStructured reporting may enhance diagnostic confidence and reduce reporting time for residents, making it particularly valuable in early training stages. However, experienced radiologists may not benefit in terms of efficiency. Free-narrative reports retain advantages in identifying subtle findings, highlighting the importance of a balanced integration of both methods in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40751740What 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.