Literature DB >> 20676724

The role of key image notes in CT imaging study interpretation.

Shu-Feng Fan1, Zhe Xu, Hai-Qing He, Jian-Rong Ding, Gao-Jun Teng.   

Abstract

The objective of the study was to investigate the clinical effects of CT key image notes (KIN) in the interpretation of a CT image study. All experiments were approved by the ethics committee of the local district. Six experienced radiologists were equally divided into routine reporting (RR) group and KIN reporting (KIN) group. CT scans of each 100 consecutive cases before and after using KIN technique were randomly selected, and the reports were made by group RR and KIN, respectively. All the reports were again reviewed 3 months later by both groups. All the results with using or not using KIN were interpreted and reinterpreted after 3 months by six clinicians, who were experienced in picture archiving and communication system (PACS) applications and were equally divided into the clinical routine report group and the clinical KIN report group, respectively. The results were statistically analyzed; the time used in making a report, the re-reading time 3 months later, and the consistency of imaging interpretation were determined and compared between groups. After using KIN technique, the time used in making a report was significantly increased (8.77 ± 5.27 vs. 10.53 ± 5.71 min, P < 0.05), the re-reading time was decreased (5.23 ± 2.54 vs. 4.99 ± 1.70 min, P < 0.05), the clinical interpretation and reinterpretation time after 3 months were decreased, and the consistency of the interpretation, reinterpretation between different doctors in different time was markedly improved (P < 0.01). CT report with KIN technique in PACS can significantly improve the consistency of the interpretation and efficiency in routine clinical work.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20676724      PMCID: PMC3056968          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-010-9317-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  10 in total

1.  A comparison of conventional film, CR hard copy and PACS soft copy images of the chest: analyses of ROC curves and inter-observer agreement.

Authors:  Gwyneth C Weatherburn; Deborah Ridout; Nicola H Strickland; Peter Robins; Christine M Glastonbury; Walter Curati; Chris Harvey; Clair Shadbolt
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Replacing traditional text radiology reports with image-centric reports: a shift from epiphany to enigma?

Authors:  Leonard Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Radiology reporting: returning to our image-centric roots.

Authors:  Bruce Reiner; Eliot Siegel
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 4.  Basics of imaging informatics. Part 1.

Authors:  Barton F Branstetter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-04-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Basics of imaging informatics: part 2.

Authors:  Barton F Branstetter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist's perspective.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner; Nancy Knight; Eliot L Siegel
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Making preliminary radiographic reports available to referring clinicians: current status.

Authors:  Mervyn D Cohen
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  The future of imaging, part II. IT leaders discuss the need to create "meta-level" software as imaging management moves outside radiology.

Authors:  Mark Hagland
Journal:  Healthc Inform       Date:  2009-01

9.  Do clinicians read our reports? Integrating the radiology information system with the electronic patient record: experiences from the first 2 years.

Authors:  Petter Hurlen; Truls Østbye; Arne Borthne; Fredrik A Dahl; Pål Gulbrandsen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-08-06       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports.

Authors:  A A O Plumb; F M Grieve; S H Khan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 2.350

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Visual Interpretation with Three-Dimensional Annotations (VITA): three-dimensional image interpretation tool for radiological reporting.

Authors:  Sharmili Roy; Michael S Brown; George L Shih
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.056

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.