ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
A modified structured magnetic resonance imaging reporting for anal fistula: a study on practicality, timeliness and reliability.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study sought to compare modified Structured Reports (mSRs) timeliness with Free-text Reports (FRs) and assess mSRs-related clinical practicality and reliability.
methodWe included patients who underwent preoperative perianal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and anal fistula surgery between January 2022 and May 2023. Two radiologists independently produced narrative reports first, then completed mSRs one month later. Reporting times were compared via paired t-test. Two anorectal surgeons independently assessed clinical satisfaction (clarity, comprehensiveness, surgical guidance value), with mutual blinding to each other's evaluations. Clinical satisfaction was analyzed using paired Wilcoxon test; reliability was evaluated via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and agreement via Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsRadiologist 1 spent more time on FRs [758.72([Formula: see text])] than mSRs [479.8([Formula: see text]), [Formula: see text]]; Radiologist 2 showed similar trends (FRs: 619.24 ([Formula: see text]) vs. mSRs: 354.80 ([Formula: see text]), [Formula: see text]). Stratified by anal fistula subtype: Simple: Radiologist 1 completed mSRs [370.45([Formula: see text])] 37.6% faster than FRs [613.55([Formula: see text]), [Formula: see text]]; Radiologist 2 saved 41.6% time (mSRs: [Formula: see text] vs. FRs: [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text]). Complex: Radiologist 1 reduced time by 36.1% (mSRs: 510.69 ([Formula: see text]) vs. FRs: 799.67([Formula: see text]), [Formula: see text]); Radiologist 2 saved 43.0% (mSRs: 370.62 ([Formula: see text]) vs. FRs: 649.74 ([Formula: see text])). Junior physicians and associate chief physicians both rated FRs lower than mSRs across clarity, completeness, and degree of surgical guidance (all [Formula: see text]). For mSRs, interrater ICC was 0.644 (clarity), 0.903 (completeness), 0.700 (degree of surgical guidance; all 95% CI reported); Bland-Altman plots showed low score differences.
conclusionA mSR significantly reduces report completion time and improves clinical satisfaction among anorectal surgeons. Moreover, it has the potential to enhance radiodiagnostic operational efficiency and exert a positive impact on surgical planning and postoperative outcomes of anal fistulas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41656383What 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.