↓ Skip to main content

Do MRI Structured Reports for Multiple Sclerosis Contain Adequate Information for Clinical Decision Making?

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Roentgenology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Do MRI Structured Reports for Multiple Sclerosis Contain Adequate Information for Clinical Decision Making?
Published in
American Journal of Roentgenology, September 2017
DOI 10.2214/ajr.17.18451
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Few data are available on how often MRI reports provide sufficient information for clinical decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this study is to evaluate if structured reporting of MRI in MS contain adequate information for clinical decision-making compared with nonstructured reporting. Brain and spinal cord MRI reports of patients with suspected or known MS before and after implementation of a structured reporting template were included. Brain and spinal cord MRI reports were assessed for presence of 11 and three key features relevant for management of MS, respectively. Three neurologists evaluated reports and images to assess lesion load, presence of sufficient information for clinical decision-making, and necessity to review MR images for clinical decision-making. Statistical analysis included t tests and chi-square tests. Thirty-two structured and 37 nonstructured reports were reviewed. Brain MRI nonstructured reports contained a mean ± SD of 3.59 ± 0.76 key features, and structured reports contained a mean of 10.25 ± 1.32 key features (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in the number of key features in nonstructured and structured spinal cord MRI reports. All neurologists could understand lesion load significantly more often when reading structured versus nonstructured reports (p < 0.001). For two of the three neurologists, structured reports contained adequate information for clinical decision-making more often than did nonstructured reports (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006). When reading nonstructured reports, two of the three neurologists needed to evaluate images significantly more often (p < 0.001). Structured reports of MRI in patients with MS provided more adequate information for clinical decision-making than nonstructured reports.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 16%
Researcher 6 14%
Other 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 51%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,090,756
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Roentgenology
#1,650
of 11,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,800
of 359,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Roentgenology
#30
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 359,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 70% of its contemporaries.