Structured Reporting of Magnetic Resonance Enterography for Pediatric Crohn’s Disease: Effect on Key Feature Reporting and Subjective Assessment of Disease by Referring Physicians

International Expert Consensus Statement on Chest Imaging in Pediatric COVID-19 Patient Management: Imaging Findings, Imaging Study Reporting, and Imaging Study Recommendations

“…15 Furthermore, structured reporting may offer additional potential benefits such as improved reporting of key imaging features and increased confidence and clarity of terminology use by the radiologist. 16,17 There are a few limitations of structured reporting for COVID-19 that merit mention. First, the utilization of a COVID-19 structured template will be best employed in regions where there is a high prevalence of the disease.…”

State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review

“…Crohn's disease is a chronic inflammatory bowel disorder which typically involves multiple segments of the gastrointestinal tract, at different time points and with varying degrees of severity [68]. While crucial information can be obtained from clinical and endoscopic evaluation, crosssectional imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance enterography (MRE), performed with administration contrast mediums both per os and per venam, is often necessary to assess disease status and guide treatment [69]. Recently, The Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Crohn Disease-Focused Panel together with the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) defined consensus recommendations regarding the use, interpretation and reporting of MRE [70].…”

“…Since the better results were found for conditions most likely to require intervention (e.g., structuring disease), the authors speculate that SR might influence Crohn's disease management. Before the SAR-AGA guidelines were released, Wildmann and colleagues compared MRE SR and NR in a population of pediatric patients with Crohn's disease [69]. They concluded that radiologists objectively detailed nearly two times more key features with structured reporting (a mean of 7.7 ± 2.5 key features for NR compared to 14.0 ± 0.8 for SR, p < 0.001).…”

Structured Radiology Reporting: Addressing the Communication Quality Gap

“…Stakeholders expect a report with information that will enable clinical decision-making. Despite the availability of guidelines and stakeholder expectations, variation persists in the detail and delivery of radiological reports [15,16], and recent studies show gaps in medical imaging report completeness [17][18][19]. To address these gaps, radiologists must understand why they exist and radiologists must change how they are using the report as a communication tool.…”