Free Text Versus Structured Format: Information Transfer Efficiency of Radiology Reports

Sistrom, Chris L.; Honeyman‐Buck, Janice C.

doi:10.2214/ajr.185.3.01850804

Cited by 91 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are very similar to previous studies, especially the one most like this one by Sistrom and Honeyman-Buck [21], although they used only two formats and medical studies while we used three formats and used attendings and residents from radiology and internal medicine. What stands out more is the fact that there were significant differences in what the various groups of participants prefer to read (impression versus both body and impression) and how they read (skimming versus detailed reading of the last versus multiple reports).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether radiology report format influences reading time and comprehension of information. Three reports were reformatted to conventional free text, structured text organized by organ system, and hierarchical structured text organized by clinical significance. Five attending radiologists, five radiology residents, five internal medicine attendings, and five internal medicine residents read the reports and answered a series of questions about them. Reading was timed and participants reported reading preferences. For reading time, there was no significant effect for format, but there was for attending versus resident, and radiology versus internal medicine. For percent correct scores, there was no significant effect for report format or for attending versus resident, but there was for radiology versus internal medicine with the radiologists scoring better overall. Report format does not appear to impact viewing time or percent correct answers, but there are differences in both for specialty and level of experience. There were also differences between the four groups of participants with respect to what they focus on in a radiology report and how they read reports (skim versus read in detail). There may not be a "one-size-fitsall" radiology report format as individual preferences differ widely.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Sistrom and Honeyman-Buck [21] have examined the impact of radiology report format on both comprehension and speed. In this study, senior medical students were given either free text or structured reports in a web-based test format.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we acknowledge that others may advocate more rigorous conceptions of structured reporting (17) (18). While our version of structured reporting may be more flexible than that envisioned by some, we conclude, as other authors have, that allowing some flexibility is worth the compromise to improve its practicality (13,19).…”

Section: Special Report: Improving Consistency In Radiology Reportingmentioning

confidence: 64%

Improving Consistency in Radiology Reporting through the Use of Department-wide Standardized Structured Reporting

Larson¹,

Towbin²,

Pryor³

et al. 2013

Radiology

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To successfully develop a department-wide standardized structured reporting program and achieve widespread adoption throughout the radiology department. Materials and Methods:A structured reporting work group was formed in February 2010 to oversee development of standardized structured reports for a radiology department of 36 radiologists at a tertiary care children's hospital. The committee reached consensus on report organization and provided written guidelines and checklists for division representatives to aid in creation of the structured reports. Report drafts were reviewed by a subcommittee and revised until agreement was reached with the report author. Each report was vetted by all radiologists who would be using the report, and further revisions were made, as appropriate. Reports were then entered into the speech recognition system so that each report was associated with a procedure code or a group of codes from the radiology information system. This enabled automatic report population within the speech recognition system. The initiative was completed by September 2011. Quarterly audits were performed to evaluate for adherence to the standard report format and use of the normal report in cases in which the radiologist believed the study was normal. In August 2012, radiologists were surveyed as to their impressions of the structured reporting program. Results:A total of 228 standardized structured reports were created within 2 years after initiation of the project, corresponding to 199 000 (94%) of 212 000 departmental studies by volume. By the end of the implementation period in September 2011, all 223 (100%) audited reports adhered to the standard report format and 80 (99%) of 81 reports adhered to the normal report. Radiologist feedback was largely favorable. Conclusion:Standardized department-wide structured reporting can be implemented in a radiology department, with a high rate of adoption by the radiologists.q RSNA, 2013

show abstract

“…Structured radiology reports present information in a consistent format, employ standardized terminology, and allow reported information to be extracted efficiently for indexing and reuse [1]. Although some technological challenges have yet to be overcome [2], referring physicians have a strong preference for structured radiology reports [3][4][5][6]. In specialty areas such as cardiovascular imaging, policy statements have signaled a move to structured reporting [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content Analysis of Reporting Templates and Free-Text Radiology Reports

Hong

Kahn

2013

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) has developed a set of templates for structured reporting of radiology results. To measure how much of the content of conventional narrative ("free-text") reports is covered by the concepts included in the RSNA reporting templates, we selected five reporting templates that represented a variety of imaging modalities and organ systems. From a sample of 8,275 consecutive, de-identified radiology reports from an academic medical center, we identified one corresponding imaging procedure code for each reporting template. The reports were annotated with RadLex and SNOMED CT terms using the BioPortal Annotator web service. The reporting templates we examined accounted for 17 to 49 % of the concepts that actually appeared in a sample of corresponding radiology reports. The findings suggest that the concepts that appear in the reporting templates occur frequently within free-text clinical reports; thus, the templates provide useful coverage of the "domain of discourse" in radiology reports. The techniques used in this study may be helpful to guide the development of reporting templates by identifying concepts that occur frequently in radiology reports, to evaluate the coverage of existing templates, and to establish global benchmarks for reporting templates.

show abstract

Free Text Versus Structured Format: Information Transfer Efficiency of Radiology Reports

Abstract: We assert that free text and itemized (structured) forms of radiology reports are equally efficient and accurate for transmitting case-specific interpretative content to reviewers of the document.

Cited by 91 publications

References 13 publications

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

Improving Consistency in Radiology Reporting through the Use of Department-wide Standardized Structured Reporting

Content Analysis of Reporting Templates and Free-Text Radiology Reports

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About