Radiology Reporting, Past, Present, and Future: The Radiologist’s Perspective

Reiner, Bruce I.; Knight, Nancy; Siegel, Eliot L.

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2007.01.015

Cited by 156 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It was interesting to find that in general, the attending radiologists took the longest to read the reports (even the traditional free text). This group also complained the most about the two non-traditional (structured and hierarchical) reports, saying they very much disliked them and never used them, confirming other studies on this topic [22][23][24]. Although it took them longer to read through them, the format did not appear impact comprehension significantly (although it did drop somewhat with the two non-traditional formats).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

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: 76%

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A radiologist's report is written with the intent of being a concise, accurate, consistent, well-organized, and complete reporting of radiologic findings. 4,5 This finding is validated by Johnson and colleagues, who published the results of their survey regarding what qualities of a radiologist's report are valued most by physicians. 6 They found that accuracy was considered most important and noted that clarity, completeness, conciseness, and mentioning pertinent negatives were other highly valued attributes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Radiological errors in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine

McEachern

Leswick

Stoneham

et al. 2014

CJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To systematically evaluate the accuracy of text descriptions and labeling of radiologic images published in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM). Error detection by radiologists and emergency physicians and the clinical significance and educational value of these errors were assessed. Errors were also correlated with radiologist involvement in publication and imaging modality. Methods: Thirty-three issues of CJEM were examined from January 2003 to May 2008. Electronic copies of all radiologic images published were obtained with their caption and description from the text. Identifying information was removed to present images in an anonymous fashion. Images were presented to two radiologists who, working in consensus, critically appraised each image and accompanying text. Images were then presented to two emergency department physicians who, working in consensus, critically appraised each image and accompanying text. All images with errors detected by either radiology or emergency physicians were then discussed to determine if errors would have affected clinical management or educational value. The emergency physicians also identified ''underlabeled'' images where it was felt that further labeling would enhance their educational value. Results: Forty-five articles with 82 images were obtained. At least one error was observed in 18 (40%) articles and 20 (24%) images. Two errors were present in three images, resulting in 23 errors. Of the 23 errors, 17 were image description errors and 6 were labeling errors. Five errors were detected by both radiology and emergency physicians, whereas 15 were detected only by radiologists and 3 were detected only by emergency physicians. Of these errors, 12 (52%) were rated as potentially affecting both clinical management and educational value, 5 (22%) as only affecting educational value, and 6 (26%) as nonsignificant.

show abstract

“…Uncertainty has been described as the Achilles heel of the radiology report [9], which is the single most important basis on which radiologists are judged by their clinical colleagues [10]. A number of diverse external factors contribute to radiology report uncertainty including technical (e.g., poor image quality), clinical (e.g., insufficient clinical data), medico legal (e.g., increased risk of litigation), anatomic (e.g., anatomic variation), and societal (e.g., lack of established standards).…”

Section: Uncertainty In Radiology Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiology Reporting, Past, Present, and Future: The Radiologist’s Perspective

Cited by 156 publications

References 21 publications

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

Radiological errors in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine

Using Analysis of Speech and Linguistics to Characterize Uncertainty in Radiology Reporting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About