Trial reportBMC urology2026
Structured template for standardised reporting of non-contrast computed tomography in urinary stone disease as a superior tool for urologists - a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC urology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardised structured reporting (SR) aims to improve the clarity, completeness, and clinical applicability of radiological reports. For non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) of urinary stones, a reporting template was developed collaboratively by the German Radiologic Society and the German Society of Urology. This study evaluates urologists’ satisfaction with SR compared to free-text reports (NR).
methodsA randomised controlled trial was conducted with 200 NCCT reports (100 SR, 100 NR). Five urologists of varying experience levels assessed the reports using a questionnaire, covering content, formal aspects, clinical consequences, and overall report quality. Scores were based on a 6-point Likert scale (0–6).
resultsStructured reports significantly outperformed free-text reports in all evaluated domains (p < 0.001). SR provided clearer descriptions of stone characteristics and radiographic signs, enabling precise clinical decision-making. The overall satisfaction score for SR was 5.83 ± 0.56 compared to 4.18 ± 1.13 for NR. Formal aspects, such as report structure, also showed marked improvements in SR.
conclusionThe findings demonstrate SR’s superiority in clinical utility, completeness, and clarity. By facilitating Artificial Intelligence integration and secondary data analysis, SR offers additional advantages. Broader adoption requires promoting user acceptance and validating translated versions for international use.
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.