Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR)

,

doi:10.1007/s13244-011-0066-7

Cited by 129 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The introduction of a structured reporting approach to lumbar spine MRI may increase awareness and detection rate of clinically relevant extra-spinal findings. Reporting policies have been addressed from the European Society of Radiology [19] with specific statements on reporting of IF; in the current clinical setting, in fact, the introduction of structured reports and formatted templates could have a profound impact on increasing the detection rate of IF. Guidelines for the advice of further actions to be suggested in the presence of potentially clinically relevant IF may be more difficult to set up; the adoption of multidisciplinary clinico-radiological approaches could enhance the clinical efficacy with a patient-centred and personalised management [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extra-spinal incidental findings at lumbar spine MRI in the general population: a large cohort study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of clinically and non-clinically relevant extra-spinal incidental findings (IF) in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine and to evaluate the rate of undetected findings in archived radiological reports.MethodsA retrospective search of patients undergoing lumbar spine MRI from January 2006 to December 2010 was conducted. By means of randomisation, we retrospectively reviewed 3,000 lumbar spine MRI examinations. Extra-spinal abnormalities were classified according to a modified CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS). We retrospectively compared our structured approach with the archived MRI reports as it regarded the detection of extra-spinal IF to estimate non-detection rates.ResultsBy means of the structured approach used, extra-spinal findings were detected in 2,060 (68.6 %) of the 3,000 lumbar spine MRI examinations; 362 (17.6 %) patients had indeterminate or clinically important findings (E3 and E4) requiring clinical correlation or further evaluation. After review of the original archived radiological reports, potentially important C-RADS E3 and E4 extra-spinal IF were respectively reported in 47 of the 265 (17.7 %) and in 8 of 74 (10.8 %) patients.ConclusionsOur study shows that incidental extra-spinal findings at conventional lumbar spine MRI are common but underestimated in radiological reports.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extra-spinal incidental findings at lumbar spine MRI in the general population: a large cohort study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The model of the structuring of the accounts of the European Society of Radiology could allow an increase of this percentage of detection [6].…”

Section: Rate Of Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extraspinal Incidental Findings at Lumbar Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Two Hospitals: Prevalence and Clinical Importance

Zeh¹,

Goujou²,

Awana³

et al. 2017

OJRad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the importance of incidental extraspinal findings on Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the lumbar spine in two hospital facilities. Materials and Methods: It was a descriptive and retrospective study from November 2015 to March 2016. The records of patients who had done a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine were re-read in search of incidental findings. The incidental findings found were classified using Colonography Reporting and Data System(C-RADS) classification of extracolonic lesions to assess clinical significance. The prevalence of incidental findings was calculated for each facility, as well as the distribution according to age, the organs involved and the clinical importance. A non-detection rate was calculated by confronting the findings of the study with the original reports. Results: The prevalence of incidental findings was respectively 33% (19 out of 36) in Jordan Medical Center (JMC) in Yaounde and 27.74% (106 out of 292) in Jacques Monod Hospital. The extraspinal incidental findings were classified mainly as extracolonic 2 (E2): 58% in each facility. The percentage detection of incidental findings was 5% at JMS and 1.7% at Jacques Monod Hospital. Conclusion: Extraspinal incidental findings are frequent in both hospitals. However, the rate of detection remains very low.

show abstract

“…The European Society of Radiology recently published a reference handbook that highlights the fundamental importance of the conclusion in a radiology report ( 4 ) , because there is evidence that a large number of physicians do not read the report in full and, in some cases, that will be the only section of the report that will be read. In our study, most of the clinicians (55.7%) indicated that they read the report in full.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The American College of Radiology and European Society of Radiology both recommend that radiology reports be structured (divided into ordered sections) and employ standard terminology, in order to improve the way in which the results of a radiological procedure are communicated, as well as that the reports make information easier to recover and reuse ( 2 , 4 ) . In the present study, we also evaluated the opinion of referring physicians regarding the way in which reports are structured and found that the vast majority of those physicians (67.1%) prefer structured reports to free-text reports, which were preferred by only 17.1% of the respondents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiology report: what is the opinion of the referring physician?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the opinion and perception of referring physicians regarding the radiology report, in order to develop tools that promote an improvement in its quality.Materials and MethodsWe prepared a questionnaire containing ten multiple choice questions about the radiology report, administering it to 70 physicians (35 specialists and 35 residents working in specialties other than radiology).ResultsReferring physicians (specialists and residents) showed a preference for structured reports, with a description explained in universal medical language and a complete conclusion listing the diagnostic possibilities with the degree of certainty. The examination technique should be described, and the final report is best presented when it contains the final chart, together with images, as hard copies and in digital format. The respondents also reported having confidence in the opinion of the radiologist and expressed the need for a direct channel of communication with the same.ConclusionReferring physicians seek detailed reports (including a description of the examination technique), preferably structured, with objective language and relevant conclusions (the position of the radiologist on the case is important). It is necessary to discuss the differential diagnoses and provide a form of contact between the parties. Although referring physicians consider the radiologist opinion relevant, they also want to analyze the images on their own.

show abstract

Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR)

Abstract: The views of the European Society of Radiology concerning what constitutes a good radiological report are outlined in this article. Some pertinent literature is reviewed.

Cited by 129 publications

References 10 publications

Extra-spinal incidental findings at lumbar spine MRI in the general population: a large cohort study

Extra-spinal incidental findings at lumbar spine MRI in the general population: a large cohort study

Extraspinal Incidental Findings at Lumbar Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Two Hospitals: Prevalence and Clinical Importance

Radiology report: what is the opinion of the referring physician?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About