Radiology Report Clarity: A Cohort Study of Structured Reporting Compared With Conventional Dictation

Johnson, Adam G.; Chen, Michael Y. M.; Zapadka, Michael E.; Lyders, Eric M.; Littenberg, Benjamin

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.008

Cited by 60 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not surprising that the total error rate in radiology reports was not significantly changed as uncommon abnormal findings are still freely dictated in our department. We allow free-dictation for uncommon abnormal findings for two reasons: first, with current technology, it is impossible to create structured language for all variations of abnormal; and second, prior studies have shown a lack of improvement in, and sometimes worsening, clarity of reports generated by purely structured reporting systems [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creation and Implementation of Department-Wide Structured Reports: An Analysis of the Impact on Error Rate in Radiology Reports

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare textual error rates and subtypes in radiology reports before and after implementation of department-wide structured reports. Randomly selected radiology reports that were generated following the implementation of department-wide structured reports were evaluated for textual errors by two radiologists. For each report, the text was compared to the corresponding audio file. Errors in each report were tabulated and classified. Error rates were compared to results from a prior study performed prior to implementation of structured reports. Calculated error rates included the average number of errors per report, average number of nongrammatical errors per report, the percentage of reports with an error, and the percentage of reports with a nongrammatical error. Identical versions of voice-recognition software were used for both studies. A total of 644 radiology reports were randomly evaluated as part of this study. There was a statistically significant reduction in the percentage of reports with nongrammatical errors (33 to 26 %; p=0.024). The likelihood of at least one missense omission error (omission errors that changed the meaning of a phrase or sentence) occurring in a report was significantly reduced from 3.5 to 1.2 % (p=0.0175). A statistically significant reduction in the likelihood of at least one comission error (retained statements from a standardized report that contradict the dictated findings or impression) occurring in a report was also observed (3.9 to 0.8 %; p=0.0007). Carefully constructed structured reports can help to reduce certain error types in radiology reports.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creation and Implementation of Department-Wide Structured Reports: An Analysis of the Impact on Error Rate in Radiology Reports

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Report clarity was studied by Johnson et al [19], comparing structured reporting with conventional dictation. This study examined whether reports generated by radiology residents using the structured format had greater clarity than those using free-text format for reporting out cranial MR exams for suspicion of stroke.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…It has been established that both referring physicians and radiologists view structured reports as having better content and greater clarity than conventional narrative reports (28), although it has been contended that report clarity is not substantially affected (29). However, both referring physicians and radiologists prefer structured reporting over the unstructured narrative (30), despite the fact that structured reporting may be more time intensive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informatics in Radiology: Improving Clinical Work Flow through an AIM Database: A Sample Web-based Lesion Tracking Application

Abajian

Levy²,

Rubin³

2012

RadioGraphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative assessments on images are crucial to clinical decision making, especially in cancer patients, in whom measurements of lesions are tracked over time. However, the potential value of quantitative approaches to imaging is impeded by the difficulty and timeintensive nature of compiling this information from prior studies and reporting corresponding information on current studies. The authors believe that the quantitative imaging work flow can be automated by making temporal data computationally accessible. In this article, they demonstrate the utility of the Annotation and Image Markup standard in a World Wide Web-based application that was developed to automatically summarize prior and current quantitative imaging measurements. The system calculates the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors metric, along with several alternative indicators of cancer treatment response, by using the data stored in the annotation files. The application also allows the user to overlay the recorded metrics on the original images for visual inspection. Clinical evaluation of the system demonstrates its potential utility in accelerating the standard radiology work flow and in providing a means to evaluate alternative response metrics that are difficult to compute by hand. The system, which illustrates the utility of capturing quantitative information in a standard format and linking it to the image from which it was derived, could enhance quantitative imaging in clinical practice without adversely affecting the current work flow.

show abstract

Radiology Report Clarity: A Cohort Study of Structured Reporting Compared With Conventional Dictation

Cited by 60 publications

References 17 publications

Creation and Implementation of Department-Wide Structured Reports: An Analysis of the Impact on Error Rate in Radiology Reports

Creation and Implementation of Department-Wide Structured Reports: An Analysis of the Impact on Error Rate in Radiology Reports

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

Informatics in Radiology: Improving Clinical Work Flow through an AIM Database: A Sample Web-based Lesion Tracking Application

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About