Literature DB >> 28069356

Radiology Reports: What YOU Think You're Saying and What THEY Think You're Saying.

Bonmyong Lee1, Matthew T Whitehead2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Image interpretation and translation into written language is an imperfect process. Yet, the radiology report represents the link between radiologist's opinion and patient's images. Increased access to images through remote viewing stations has made direct communication between radiologists and clinicians less commonplace. We are interested in how accurately the descriptive contents within radiology reports convey the feelings of the radiologist to the referring clinician. We hypothesize that certain words and phrases hold different connotations for radiologists and clinicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two part survey was designed. Medical specialty, level of training, and number of radiology reports read/week was contained in part I. Part II concerned the quantification of radiologists' diagnostic confidence in range percentages based on specific words and phrases. These voluntary surveys were emailed to all faculty at a single university medical center. Additional paper surveys were randomly distributed to medical students, residents, and physicians. A total of 100 completed surveys were collected (33 radiologists and 67 non-radiologists). Data was exported to EXCEL for statistical analysis. Direct comparisons were made between the survey answers from radiologists and nonradiologists. DISCUSSION: Percentile ranges for most radiologists and non-radiologists were in agreement in 25/36 questions. However, the absolute percentage value was somewhat variable. 11/36 questions generated discrepancy between radiologists and non-radiologists. The following words and phrases were in disagreement: "diagnostic of", "consistent with", "compatible with", "evidence of", "may represent", "normal", "degraded by artifact", "obscured detail", "mildly limited", "moderately limited", and "nondiagnostic".
CONCLUSION: Sound physician communication is a critical component of quality healthcare delivery. Certain words and phrases carry different meanings for radiologists and clinicians. With structured reporting becoming more prevalent, the radiology lexicon should be defined in a more concrete manner. Ambiguous terms should be eliminated all together.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28069356     DOI: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.11.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Probl Diagn Radiol        ISSN: 0363-0188


  14 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  A Hybrid Reporting Platform for Extended RadLex Coding Combining Structured Reporting Templates and Natural Language Processing.

Authors:  Florian Jungmann; G Arnhold; B Kämpgen; T Jorg; C Düber; P Mildenberger; R Kloeckner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Meaningful words in rectal MRI synoptic reports: How "polypoid" may be prognostic.

Authors:  Jennifer S Golia Pernicka; David D B Bates; James L Fuqua; Andrea Knezevic; Joongchul Yoon; Lorenzo Nardo; Iva Petkovska; Viktoriya Paroder; Garrett M Nash; Arnold J Markowitz; Marc J Gollub
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 1.605

4.  Discordance Between Oncology Clinician-Perceived and Radiologist-Intended Meaning of the Postradiotherapy Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Freeform Report for Head and Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Zachary Patel; Jennifer A Schroeder; Paul M Bunch; Joni K Evans; Cole R Steber; Adam G Johnson; Joshua C Farris; Ryan T Hughes
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2022-10-01       Impact factor: 8.961

5.  Qualifying Certainty in Radiology Reports through Deep Learning-Based Natural Language Processing.

Authors:  F Liu; P Zhou; S J Baccei; M J Masciocchi; N Amornsiripanitch; C I Kiefe; M P Rosen
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 4.966

6.  Ovarian cancer reporting lexicon for computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging developed by the SAR Uterine and Ovarian Cancer Disease-Focused Panel and the ESUR Female Pelvic Imaging Working Group.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Sadowski; Atul B Shinagare; Hyesun Park; Olga R Brook; Rosemarie Forstner; Sumer K Wallace; Jeanne M Horowitz; Neil Horowitz; Marcia Javitt; Priyanka Jha; Aki Kido; Yulia Lakhman; Susanna I Lee; Lucia Manganaro; Katherine E Maturen; Stephanie Nougaret; Liina Poder; Gaiane M Rauch; Caroline Reinhold; Evis Sala; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Herbert Alberto Vargas; Aradhana Venkatesan; Olivera Nikolic; Andrea G Rockall
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 7.034

7.  The fate of radiology report recommendations at a pediatric medical center.

Authors:  Bonmyong Lee; Hansel J Otero; Matthew T Whitehead
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-08-29

Review 8.  Big data, artificial intelligence, and structured reporting.

Authors:  Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Bettina Baeßler
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2018-12-05

Review 9.  Radiology reporting-from Hemingway to HAL?

Authors:  Adrian P Brady
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-03-14

10.  Structured report data can be used to develop deep learning algorithms: a proof of concept in ankle radiographs.

Authors:  Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Sebastian Brodehl; Bettina Baeßler; Gordon Arnhold; Thomas Dratsch; Seung-Hun Chon; Peter Mildenberger; Florian Jungmann
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2019-09-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.