Literature DB >> 21224423

The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys.

Jan M L Bosmans1, Joost J Weyler, Arthur M De Schepper, Paul M Parizel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate and compare the opinions and expectations regarding the radiology report of radiologists and referring clinicians and to identify trends, discordance, and discontent.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 3884 clinicians and 292 radiologists were invited by e-mail to participate in two internet surveys, COVER (for clinical specialists and general practitioners) and ROVER (for radiologists). Respondents were asked to state their level of agreement with 46 statements according to a Likert scale. Dichotomized results were compared by using the χ(2) statistic.
RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-three completed forms were prepared for analysis, corresponding to a response rate of 21%. Most clinicians declared themselves satisfied with the radiology report. A large majority considered it an indispensable tool and accepted that the radiologist is the best person to interpret the images. Nearly all agreed that they need to provide adequate clinical information and state clearly what clinical question they want to have answered. Itemized reporting was preferred for complex examinations by both the clinicians and the radiologists. A majority in both groups were convinced that learning to report needs to be taught in a structured way.
CONCLUSION: The surveys emphasize the role of the radiologist as a well-informed medical imaging specialist; however, some of the preferences of radiologists and clinicians diverge fundamentally from the way radiology is practiced and taught today, and implementing these preferences may have far-reaching consequences. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21224423     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  45 in total

1.  An open-standards grammar for outline-style radiology report templates.

Authors:  Selen Bozkurt; Charles E Kahn
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Structured reporting using a shared indexed multilingual radiology lexicon.

Authors:  Roberto Stramare; Giuliano Scattolin; Valeria Beltrame; Marco Gerardi; Marco Sommavilla; Cristina Gatto; Paolo Mosca; Leopoldo Rubaltelli; Carlo Riccardo Rossi; Claudio Saccavini
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  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

4.  Variation in the documentation of findings in pediatric voiding cystourethrogram.

Authors:  Anthony J Schaeffer; Shreya Sood; Tanya Logvinenko; Graciela Rivera-Castro; Ilina Rosoklija; Jeanne S Chow; Caleb P Nelson
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2014-05-25

Review 5.  Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process.

Authors:  Àlex Rovira; Mike P Wattjes; Mar Tintoré; Carmen Tur; Tarek A Yousry; Maria P Sormani; Nicola De Stefano; Massimo Filippi; Cristina Auger; Maria A Rocca; Frederik Barkhof; Franz Fazekas; Ludwig Kappos; Chris Polman; David Miller; Xavier Montalban
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 42.937

6.  Conversion of Radiology Reporting Templates to the MRRT Standard.

Authors:  Charles E Kahn; Brad Genereaux; Curtis P Langlotz
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 7.  The state of structured reporting: the nuance of standardized language.

Authors:  Lindsey A G Shea; Alexander J Towbin
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29

8.  Teaching the millennial radiology resident: applying a five-step 'microskills' pedagogy.

Authors:  Colin Jingxian Tan; Chee Yeong Lim
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.858

9.  Radiologists' Training, Experience, and Attitudes About Elder Abuse Detection.

Authors:  Tony Rosen; Elizabeth M Bloemen; Jasmin Harpe; Allen M Sanchez; Kevin W Mennitt; Thomas J McCarthy; Refky Nicola; Kieran Murphy; Veronica M LoFaso; Neal Flomenbaum; Mark S Lachs
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Structured reporting in petrous bone MRI examinations: impact on report completeness and quality.

Authors:  Marco Armbruster; Sebastian Gassenmaier; Mareike Haack; Maximilian Reiter; Dominik Nörenberg; Thomas Henzler; Nora N Sommer; Wieland H Sommer; Franziska Braun
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 2.924

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.