ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Structured reporting enhances diagnostic quality in periapical dental radiographs: a comparative evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of structured reporting on interpretability of PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer staging-towards standardised clinical implementation.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiological reports are critical for accurate diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making. While narrative free-text reports remain the conventional standard in dental radiology, structured reporting has emerged as a promising approach to enhance report quality, consistency, and clinical relevance. This study aims to assess whether structured reporting provides measurable advantages over traditional narrative reports in the interpretation of dental radiographs. Materials and methods: A total of 50 randomly selected narrative reports of intraoral dental radiographs were retrospectively analyzed. Using a standardized template, corresponding structured reports were created for each case. Two independent dentists evaluated the reports using a detailed questionnaire, comparing both formats across nine parameters: therapeutic decision-making, completeness, information extraction, level of detail, logical sequence, trustworthiness, linguistic quality, clarity, and overall assessment. Results: Structured reports showed significantly higher ratings in terms of completeness, information extraction, detail, trust, linguistic quality, clarity, and overall evaluation ( Conclusion: Structured reporting in dental radiology demonstrates clear benefits in report clarity, quality, and interpretive utility. Although its impact on clinical decision-making may be equivalent to narrative reports, its consistent structure offers valuable advantages for communication, documentation, and future integration with clinical decision support systems.
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.