↓ Skip to main content

Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Improvement of radiology reporting in a clinical cancer network: impact of an optimised multidisciplinary workflow
Published in
European Radiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00330-018-5427-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. W. Olthof, J. Borstlap, W. W. Roeloffzen, P. M. C. Callenbach, P. M. A. van Ooijen

Abstract

To assess the effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement project in a clinical cancer network directed at the response assessment of oncology patients according to RECIST-criteria. Requests and reports of computed tomography (CT) studies from before (n = 103) and after (n = 112) implementation of interventions were compared. The interventions consisted of: a multidisciplinary working agreement with a clearly described workflow; subspecialisation of radiologists; adaptation of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS); structured reporting. The essential information included in the requests and the reports improved significantly after implementation of the interventions. In the requests, mentioning start date increased from 2% to 49%; date of baseline CT from 7% to 64%; nadir date from 1% to 41%. In the reports, structured layout increased from 14% to 86%; mentioning target lesions from 18% to 80% and non-target lesions from 11% to 80%; measurements stored in PACS increased from 76% to 97%; labelled key images from 38% to 95%; all p values < 0.001. The combination of implementation of an optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting led to significantly better quality radiology reporting for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. The applied multifactorial approach can be used within other radiology subspeciality areas as well. • Undeveloped subspecialisation makes adherence to RECIST guidelines difficult in general hospitals. • A clinical cancer network provides opportunities to improve healthcare. • Optimised workflow, subspecialisation and structured reporting substantially improve request and report quality. • Good interdisciplinary communication between oncologists, radiologists and others contributes to quality improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Engineering 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2018.
All research outputs
#16,772,608
of 25,649,244 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#2,683
of 5,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,708
of 341,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#36
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,649,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,048 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.