Laila Qadan1, Adel Ahmed2, Kusum Kapila3. 1. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Kuwait, laila@hsc.edu.kw. 2. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Kuwait. 3. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Kuwait.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Thyroid ultrasound plays a major role in the clinical management of patients with thyroid nodules. Comprehensive reporting enables malignant risk stratification and biopsy decisions. In this study, we aimed at a systematic evaluation of the content and completeness of thyroid radiology reports. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken. A total of 200 thyroid ultrasound reports of examinations performed over a 1-year period were reviewed. After excluding 18 reports, the remaining 182 were evaluated for the inclusion of the following nodule characteristics: size, 3-axis dimensions, location, presence or absence of five signs suspicious of malignancy, namely microcalcification, hypoechogenecity, irregular margin, height-to-width ratio, and intranodular vascularity. RESULTS: While all reported nodules could be stratified easily as being more or less than 1 cm in size, only 23.6% of these nodules were reported in 3 dimensions, and 33.5% of the nodules were specifically localized. For any described nodule, the frequency of reporting on echogenicity was 50%, on vascularity 19.2%, on margin 10.4%, on calcifications 9.3%, and no report contained a description of the height-to-width ratio. The cumulative frequency of reporting on one characteristic per nodule was 84%, of two characteristics 27%, three characteristics 4.4%, and no report included ≥4 characteristics per nodule. CONCLUSION: Despite easily accessible templates, reporting of thyroid nodule sonogram continues to be incomplete and inconsistent. This in turn constitutes a waste of a significant tool that could otherwise help in making timely informed medical decisions and in providing a significant platform for patients' future follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: Thyroid ultrasound plays a major role in the clinical management of patients with thyroid nodules. Comprehensive reporting enables malignant risk stratification and biopsy decisions. In this study, we aimed at a systematic evaluation of the content and completeness of thyroid radiology reports. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken. A total of 200 thyroid ultrasound reports of examinations performed over a 1-year period were reviewed. After excluding 18 reports, the remaining 182 were evaluated for the inclusion of the following nodule characteristics: size, 3-axis dimensions, location, presence or absence of five signs suspicious of malignancy, namely microcalcification, hypoechogenecity, irregular margin, height-to-width ratio, and intranodular vascularity. RESULTS: While all reported nodules could be stratified easily as being more or less than 1 cm in size, only 23.6% of these nodules were reported in 3 dimensions, and 33.5% of the nodules were specifically localized. For any described nodule, the frequency of reporting on echogenicity was 50%, on vascularity 19.2%, on margin 10.4%, on calcifications 9.3%, and no report contained a description of the height-to-width ratio. The cumulative frequency of reporting on one characteristic per nodule was 84%, of two characteristics 27%, three characteristics 4.4%, and no report included ≥4 characteristics per nodule. CONCLUSION: Despite easily accessible templates, reporting of thyroid nodule sonogram continues to be incomplete and inconsistent. This in turn constitutes a waste of a significant tool that could otherwise help in making timely informed medical decisions and in providing a significant platform for patients' future follow-up.
Authors: Edward G Grant; Franklin N Tessler; Jenny K Hoang; Jill E Langer; Michael D Beland; Lincoln L Berland; John J Cronan; Terry S Desser; Mary C Frates; Ulrike M Hamper; William D Middleton; Carl C Reading; Leslie M Scoutt; A Thomas Stavros; Sharlene A Teefey Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Franklin N Tessler; William D Middleton; Edward G Grant; Jenny K Hoang; Lincoln L Berland; Sharlene A Teefey; John J Cronan; Michael D Beland; Terry S Desser; Mary C Frates; Lynwood W Hammers; Ulrike M Hamper; Jill E Langer; Carl C Reading; Leslie M Scoutt; A Thomas Stavros Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-04-02 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Bryan R Haugen; Erik K Alexander; Keith C Bible; Gerard M Doherty; Susan J Mandel; Yuri E Nikiforov; Furio Pacini; Gregory W Randolph; Anna M Sawka; Martin Schlumberger; Kathryn G Schuff; Steven I Sherman; Julie Ann Sosa; David L Steward; R Michael Tuttle; Leonard Wartofsky Journal: Thyroid Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Andrew S Griffin; Jason Mitsky; Upma Rawal; Abraham J Bronner; Franklin N Tessler; Jenny K Hoang Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Manolhas Karkada; Andreu F Costa; Syed Ali Imran; Robert D Hart; Martin Bullock; Gabriela Ilie; Murali Rajaraman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Gary Gamme; Tyler Parrington; Edward Wiebe; Sunita Ghosh; Brendan Litt; David C Williams; Todd P W McMullen Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.089