L Cereser1, F Marchesini2, E Di Poi3, S Sacco4, G De Marchi5, A Linda6, G Como7, C Zuiani8, R Girometti9. 1. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: lcereser@sirm.org. 2. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: filippo.marchesini88@gmail.com. 3. Rheumatology Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: emma.dipoi@asufc.sanita.fvg.it. 4. Rheumatology Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: stefania.sacco@asufc.sanita.fvg.it. 5. Rheumatology Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: ginevra.demarchi@asufc.sanita.fvg.it. 6. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: anna.linda@asufc.sanita.fvg.it. 7. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: giuseppe.como@asufc.sanita.fvg.it. 8. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: chiara.zuiani@uniud.it. 9. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital "S. Maria della Misericordia", p.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 15 - 33100, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: rgirometti@sirm.org.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact on perceived report quality of referring rheumatologists for a chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) structured report (SR) template for patients with connective tissue disease (CTD), compared to the traditional narrative report (NR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively considered 123 HRCTs in patients with CTD. Three radiologists, blinded to the original NRs they wrote during clinical routine, re-reported each HRCT using an SR dedicated template. We then divided all NR-SR couples into three groups (41 HRCT each). Each group was evaluated by one of three rheumatologists (R1, R2, R3), who expressed their perceived report quality for the respective pools of NRs and SRs in terms of completeness, clarity (both on a 10-points scale), and clinical relevance (on a 5-points scale). The Wilcoxon test and the McNemar test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: For each rheumatologist, SR received higher ratings compared to NR for completeness (median ratings: R1, 10 vs. 7; R2, 10 vs. 8; R3, 10 vs. 6, all p < 0.0001), clarity (median ratings: R1, 10 vs. 7; R2, 10 vs. 8; R3, 10 vs. 7, all p < 0.0001), and clinical relevance (median ratings: R1, 5 vs. 4; R2, 5 vs. 4; R3, 5 vs. 1, all p < 0.0001). After rating dichotomization, the use of SR led to a significant increase (p < 0.01) in completeness, clarity, and clinical relevance as compared to NR, except for clarity as perceived by R2 (p = 1). CONCLUSION: Referring rheumatologists' perceived report quality for structured reporting of HRCT in patients with CTD was superior to narrative reporting.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact on perceived report quality of referring rheumatologists for a chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) structured report (SR) template for patients with connective tissue disease (CTD), compared to the traditional narrative report (NR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively considered 123 HRCTs in patients with CTD. Three radiologists, blinded to the original NRs they wrote during clinical routine, re-reported each HRCT using an SR dedicated template. We then divided all NR-SR couples into three groups (41 HRCT each). Each group was evaluated by one of three rheumatologists (R1, R2, R3), who expressed their perceived report quality for the respective pools of NRs and SRs in terms of completeness, clarity (both on a 10-points scale), and clinical relevance (on a 5-points scale). The Wilcoxon test and the McNemar test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: For each rheumatologist, SR received higher ratings compared to NR for completeness (median ratings: R1, 10 vs. 7; R2, 10 vs. 8; R3, 10 vs. 6, all p < 0.0001), clarity (median ratings: R1, 10 vs. 7; R2, 10 vs. 8; R3, 10 vs. 7, all p < 0.0001), and clinical relevance (median ratings: R1, 5 vs. 4; R2, 5 vs. 4; R3, 5 vs. 1, all p < 0.0001). After rating dichotomization, the use of SR led to a significant increase (p < 0.01) in completeness, clarity, and clinical relevance as compared to NR, except for clarity as perceived by R2 (p = 1). CONCLUSION: Referring rheumatologists' perceived report quality for structured reporting of HRCT in patients with CTD was superior to narrative reporting.
Authors: Samuel J Galgano; Mason Kirkland; Taylor Kuhlman; Ahmed Khalaf; Desiree E Morgan; Cheri L Canon; Jessica G Zarzour Journal: Dysphagia Date: 2021-11-20 Impact factor: 2.733