ArticleScientific reports2025
Structured panendoscopy reports improve report completeness and documentation time.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Even today, surgical reports are usually dictated in a free text form (FTR), leading to a wide range in report-quality. This study investigated the use of a fully structured panendoscopy report (SR) compared to FTRs. 64 panendoscopies were performed by three experienced head and neck surgeons. The surgical reports were created as both FTRs and SRs, which were examined regarding time to completion and content using a multilevel regression analysis. User satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire. There was no significant difference in time to complete the SRs compared to FTRs. The completeness ratings of SRs were significantly higher than for FTRs (81% vs. 66%, p < 0.001), leading to increased report quality. Overall user satisfaction was higher for SRs than for conventional FTRs (VAS 8.1 vs. 3.5, p < 0.001). The SRs proved to be fast to complete and more comprehensive with a higher completeness of content. Participating surgeons indicated that they preferred SRs over FTRs because of their advantages in terms of structure, guidance for inexperienced residents and non-native speakers. The data stratification also enables secondary data use to further develop deep learning algorithms in patient care and research.
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.