Literature DB >> 21030479

Style and content of CT and MR imaging lumbar spine reports: radiologist and clinician preferences.

M Ghali Eskander1, A Leung, D Lee.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Several studies have examined clinician preferences regarding the style of body sonography and CT reports. Our study is the first to examine clinicians' and radiologists' preferences in lumbar spine CT and MR imaging reports with respect to content and format and specific components such as management suggestions by the radiologist.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A spine report survey, which consisted of 3 case scenarios, each with 6 different reports varying in content and format, was mailed to clinicians and radiologists. Their preferences regarding content, format, and management suggestions were gathered.
RESULTS: A total of 89 clinicians (49%) and 31 radiologists (53%) responded. Both clinicians and radiologists preferred reports with moderate or detailed instead of limited content (P < .01). Itemized and prose formats were equally acceptable to clinicians and radiologists. Although both groups identified moderate CT technique description as ideal, more clinicians valued the inclusion of the quality of a CT study (P < .001). Specialists preferred reports with greater detail but no recommendations, whereas family physicians preferred less detail but wanted specific management suggestions (P < .01). Neuroradiologists (75%-100%) were more likely to provide management suggestions than non-neuroradiologists (23%-59%).
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians favored lumbar spine CT and MR imaging reports with detailed content in either itemized or structured prose formats, irrespective of the modality or the extent of abnormalities reported. Family physicians preferred management suggestions from the radiologists. Specialists, however, preferred a review of the radiologic findings and an opinion without specific recommendations. To optimize patient care, radiologists should be mindful of these preferences and consider tailoring their reports to their audiences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21030479      PMCID: PMC7964006          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2218

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  13 in total

1.  Malpractice issues in radiology. American College of Radiology Standard for Communication.

Authors:  P N Cascade; L Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content.

Authors:  S S Naik; A Hanbidge; S R Wilson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports.

Authors:  Chris L Sistrom; Janice Honeyman-Buck
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Diagnostic radiology reporting and communication: the ACR guideline.

Authors:  David C Kushner; Leonard L Lucey
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective.

Authors:  F M Grieve; A A Plumb; S H Khan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians.

Authors:  Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  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

8.  The radiological report: what is useful for the referring physician?

Authors:  M Lafortune; G Breton; J L Baudouin
Journal:  Can Assoc Radiol J       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 2.248

9.  A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

Authors:  Rachelle Buchbinder; Richard H Osborne; Peter R Ebeling; John D Wark; Peter Mitchell; Chris Wriedt; Stephen Graves; Margaret P Staples; Bridie Murphy
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough?

Authors:  R F McLoughlin; C B So; R R Gray; R Brandt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  2 in total

1.  Assessment of follow-up completeness and notification preferences for imaging findings of possible cancer: what happens after radiologists submit their reports?

Authors:  Caroline E Sloan; Seetharam C Chadalavada; Tessa S Cook; Curtis P Langlotz; Mitchell D Schnall; Hanna M Zafar
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  A nonparametric Bayesian method of translating machine learning scores to probabilities in clinical decision support.

Authors:  Brian Connolly; K Bretonnel Cohen; Daniel Santel; Ulya Bayram; John Pestian
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 3.169

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.