ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Impact of structured reporting on interpretability of PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer staging-towards standardised clinical implementation.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study assessed the impact of structured reporting (SR) compared with conventional free-text reporting (FTR) on report quality for PSMA PET/CT for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer (PC) using a dedicated template. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty consecutive patients were included. Original clinical FTRs were compared with SRs retrospectively generated for the same examinations using template-based online software featuring clickable decision trees. Two readers specialised in urology and radioligand therapy independently assessed reports with regard to completeness, ease of information extraction, linguistic and overall report quality.
resultsFTR achieved higher scores for overall report quality compared with SR (mean 5.46 versus 4.71; p < 0.0001) and was associated with fewer missing key features (present in 36% of FTR versus 54% of SR; p = 0.005). Information was rated sufficient to guide decision-making regarding surgery versus conservative therapy in 91% of FTR compared to 76% of SR (p = 0.018). Information extraction was rated easy in 69% of FTR compared to 50% of SRs (p = 0.007). FTR received higher scores for linguistic quality (mean 5.69 versus 5.09; p < 0.001). The key clinical questions were answered equally between reporting formats (p = 0.68).
conclusionIn PSMA PET/CT reporting, FTR consistently achieved higher ratings than template-based SR, with respect to overall report quality, clinical usefulness for management decisions, information retrieval, and linguistic quality. These findings underline that the performance of SR strongly depends on template design, implementation workflow, and local reporting expertise, and that SR tools require careful, indication-specific validation. KEY POINTS: Question Does SR improve the quality, completeness, interpretability, and clinical usefulness of PSMA PET/CT reports for PC staging compared with FTR? Findings FTR were rated superior to SR regarding clinical decision-making, completeness, report quality, and information retrieval. Relevance statement In PSMA PET/CT, report format directly affects the usability of imaging findings for therapeutic decision-making. The effectiveness of SR appears dependent on local reporting expertise and clinical context, underscoring the need for prospective, indication-specific validation before routine clinical implementation.
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.