ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Before the examination: digital check-in].
Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe check-in before imaging is an often underestimated but clinically critical step in the radiological patient journey. In computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the quality of pre-examination information substantially determines whether risks are identified, examinations are adequately planned, and workflows are efficiently managed.
objectiveTo describe the clinical and organizational relevance of digital check-in processes in radiology and to assess their potential benefits, limitations, and prerequisites. MATERIALS AND
methodsNarrative review focusing on radiology-specific literature on appointment management, digital patient history and informed consent, protocol selection, patient portals, and implementation barriers.
resultsDigital check-in processes can improve the completeness of relevant pre-examination information, facilitate earlier identification of radiological risk constellations, reduce no-shows, focus informed consent discussions, and support protocol planning. However, their benefit depends largely on integration into established systems, as well as on patient-centered design.
conclusionThe greatest added value arises not from isolated tools, but from a clinically designed, interoperable pre-examination process. Digital solutions should support physicians and improve the patient journey.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42380338What 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.