Redefining the structure of structured reporting in radiology

Nobel, J. Martijn; Kok, Esther T.; Robben, Simon G. F.

doi:10.1186/s13244-019-0831-6

Cited by 54 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The European Society of Radiology has published several practice guidelines addressing quality standards of radiology reports [19][20][21][22]. However, there is ongoing discussion on how to define structured reporting [23]. With reference to Weiss and Bolos [24], the European Society of Radiology identifies three levels of complexity of structured reporting [22,24]: The first level comprises a structured format with headings and subheadings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A distinction between standardised reporting and structured reporting has been suggested [23]: Standardised reporting is proposed to represent a means of streamlining the medical content of a radiological report. Structured reporting is proposed to include particular IT to arrange the radiology report [23]. An IT-based reporting tool is thought necessary to support the reporting radiologist by ordering the report into a certain layout (level 1) and by providing predefined medical content (level 2) [23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Structured reporting is proposed to include particular IT to arrange the radiology report [23]. An IT-based reporting tool is thought necessary to support the reporting radiologist by ordering the report into a certain layout (level 1) and by providing predefined medical content (level 2) [23]. Considering this, our reporting concept is supposed to meet the criteria of top-level structured reporting as a specific computer application is being used to provide report templates, to arrange the content and to assist in using standardised language for clinical response assessment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reasons for using structured reporting include improvement of reporting quality as well as datafication and accessibility of radiology reports for scientific purposes [ 22 ]. A distinction between standardised reporting and structured reporting has been suggested [ 23 ]: Standardised reporting is proposed to represent a means of streamlining the medical content of a radiological report. Structured reporting is proposed to include particular IT to arrange the radiology report [ 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Our aim was to develop a structured reporting concept (structured oncology report, SOR) for general follow-up assessment of cancer patients in clinical routine. Furthermore, we analysed the report quality of SOR compared to conventional reports (CR) as assessed by referring oncologists. Methods SOR was designed to provide standardised layout, tabulated tumour burden documentation and standardised conclusion using uniform terminology. A software application for reporting was programmed to ensure consistency of layout and vocabulary and to facilitate utilisation of SOR. Report quality was analysed for 25 SOR and 25 CR retrospectively by 6 medical oncologists using a 7-point scale (score 1 representing the best score) for 6 questionnaire items addressing different elements of report quality and overall satisfaction. A score of ≤ 3 was defined as a positive rating. Results In the first year after full implementation, 7471 imaging examinations were reported using SOR. The proportion of SOR in relation to all oncology reports increased from 49 to 95% within a few months. Report quality scores were better for SOR for each questionnaire item (p < 0.001 each). Averaged over all questionnaire item scores were 1.98 ± 1.22 for SOR and 3.05 ± 1.93 for CR (p < 0.001). The overall satisfaction score was 2.15 ± 1.32 for SOR and 3.39 ± 2.08 for CR (p < 0.001). The proportion of positive ratings was higher for SOR (89% versus 67%; p < 0.001). Conclusions Department-wide structured reporting for follow-up imaging performed for assessment of anticancer treatment efficacy is feasible using a dedicated software application. Satisfaction of referring oncologist with report quality is superior for structured reports.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite its broad application, different definitions for structured reporting are used interchangeably [10]. First, it can refer to standardized reporting where a template with wellestablished required components is used to make a structured report.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Structured Reporting in Radiology: Implementation and Long-Term Evaluation in Improving the Communication of Critical Findings

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured reporting contributes to the completeness of radiology reports and improves quality. Both the content and the structure are essential for successful implementation of structured reporting. Contextual structured reporting is tailored to a specific scenario and can contain information retrieved from the context. Critical findings detected by imaging need urgent communication to the referring physician. According to guidelines, the occurrence of this communication should be documented in the radiology reports and should contain when, to whom and how was communicated. In free-text reporting, one or more of these required items might be omitted. We developed a contextual structured reporting template to ensure complete documentation of the communication of critical findings. The WHEN and HOW items were included automatically, and the insertion of the WHO-item was facilitated by the template. A pre-and post-implementation study demonstrated a substantial improvement in guideline adherence. The template usage improved in the long-term postimplementation study compared with the short-term results. The two most often occurring categories of critical findings are "infection / inflammation" and "oncology", corresponding to the a large part of urgency level 2 (to be reported within 6 h) and level 3 (to be reported within 6 days), respectively. We conclude that contextual structured reporting is feasible for required elements in radiology reporting and for automated insertion of context-dependent data. Contextual structured reporting improves guideline adherence for communication of critical findings.

show abstract

Template-Based Structured Reporting

Coppola

Faggioni

2022

Structured Reporting in Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Redefining the structure of structured reporting in radiology

Cited by 54 publications

References 16 publications

Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients

Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients

Contextual Structured Reporting in Radiology: Implementation and Long-Term Evaluation in Improving the Communication of Critical Findings

Template-Based Structured Reporting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About