The radiology report — Are we getting the message across?

Wallis, Adam; McCoubrie, Paul

doi:10.1016/j.crad.2011.05.013

Cited by 156 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An obvious quality effect may consist of an additional imaging exam, which may result in additional cost, radiation, and/or management time delay. A more insidious quality effect may consist of equivocal or ambiguous report findings, which may produce confusion or even error on the part of the clinician when instituting clinical management [17,18]. It is somewhat ironic that an insidious quality effect such as report ambiguity can produce a negative impact of greater magnitude that a more obvious quality effect and this illustrates the clinical imperative of quality improvement in medical imaging.…”

Section: Quality Assessment and The Medical Imaging Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating Accountability in Image Quality Analysis Part 3: Creation of a Standardized Image-Centric Mark-Up and Annotation Tool

Reiner

2013

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Quality Assessment and The Medical Imaging Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating Accountability in Image Quality Analysis Part 3: Creation of a Standardized Image-Centric Mark-Up and Annotation Tool

Reiner

2013

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The result is a consistently structured report that is easy to read and to compare with earlier reports. These structured reports have been shown to be favoured over prose reports by GPs (1,3,8).…”

Section: The Radiology Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most cases, the referring clinician did not react adequately to the message in the report, as a consequence of which prompt diagnosis or therapy were postponed. If the radiologist expresses himself more strongly in the reports, GPs will act much sooner (3).…”

Section: The Radiology Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Doing so is not only good medical practice, it is also in the interest of the radiologist. GPs dissatisfied with the quality of reports and communication could turn to alternative providers for their imaging referrals (3).…”

Section: Paper Vs Electronic Request Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If findings are conveyed to the referring clinicians the time and means of communication should be recorded (3,6).…”

Section: Special Article Optimizing Communication Between the Radiolomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Optimizing communication between the radiologist and the general practitioner

Jans

Bosmans

Verstraete

et al. 2013

Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visceral adipose tissue volume effect in Crohn's disease using reduced exposure CT enterography

Hunter,

Baker,

Ream

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this investigation was to assess the effect of visceral adipose tissue volume (VA) on reader efficacy in diagnosing and characterizing small bowel Crohn's disease using lower exposure CT enterography (CTE). Secondarily, we investigated the effect of lower exposure and VA on reader diagnostic confidence.MethodsProspective paired investigation of 256 CTE, 129 with Crohn's disease, were reconstructed at 100% and simulated 50% and 30% exposure. The senior author provided the disease classification for the 129 patients with Crohn's disease. Patient VA was measured, and exams were evaluated by six readers for presence or absence of Crohn's disease and phenotype using a 0–10‐point scale. Logistic regression models assessed the effect of VA on sensitivity and specificity.ResultsThe effect of VA on sensitivity was significantly reduced at 30% exposure (odds radio [OR]: 1.00) compared to 100% exposure (OR: 1.12) (p = 0.048). There was no statistically significant difference among the exposures with respect to the effect of visceral fat on specificity (p = 0.159). The study readers’ probability of agreement with the senior author on disease classification was 60%, 56%, and 53% at 100%, 50%, and 30% exposure, respectively (p = 0.004). When detecting low severity Crohn's disease, readers’ mean sensitivity was 83%, 75%, and 74% at 100%, 50%, and 30% exposure, respectively (p = 0.002). In low severity disease, sensitivity also tended to increase as visceral fat increased (ORs per 1000 cm3 increase in visceral fat: 1.32, 1.31, and 1.18, p = 0.010, 0.016, and 0.100, at 100%, 50%, and 30% exposure).ConclusionsWhile the interaction is complex, VA plays a role in detecting and characterizing small bowel Crohn's disease when exposure is altered, particularly in low severity disease.

show abstract

The radiology report — Are we getting the message across?

Cited by 156 publications

References 36 publications

Creating Accountability in Image Quality Analysis Part 3: Creation of a Standardized Image-Centric Mark-Up and Annotation Tool

Creating Accountability in Image Quality Analysis Part 3: Creation of a Standardized Image-Centric Mark-Up and Annotation Tool

Optimizing communication between the radiologist and the general practitioner

Visceral adipose tissue volume effect in Crohn's disease using reduced exposure CT enterography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About