Literature DB >> 7676970

Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough?

R F McLoughlin1, C B So, R R Gray, R Brandt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine whether physicians prefer radiology reports with no description, a brief description, or a detailed description of the radiologic findings. We also examined the effects of various clinical circumstances and physician characteristics (e.g., specialty and number of years in practice) on these preferences. This study, which is limited to commonly encountered scenarios, is concerned solely with the description of imaging findings and not with other aspects of the reports, such as the diagnosis and technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the 100 physicians who most frequently refer patients to our practice for chest radiographs and abdominal sonograms. The questionnaire outlined six clinical scenarios. For each scenario the physician was asked to indicate the preferred radiology report from a set of three reports varying in descriptive detail.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven physicians replied. For a normal chest radiograph in a patient without specific chest symptoms, the most popular report format indicated simply that the examination was normal. When there were clinical findings involving the chest or abnormal radiologic findings, the majority of referring physicians desired a description of the findings and the radiologic diagnosis. For abdominal sonograms the majority of physicians favored reports detailing the findings, even when the findings were normal. In all instances the preferences expressed were independent of the academic status, number of years in practice, number of reports read per day, and specialty of the referring physician.
CONCLUSION: Our results show that preferences of referring physicians for the extent of description of imaging findings included in radiology reports depend on the clinical circumstances. In the specific clinical scenarios examined, physicians preferred that the report include a brief description of the findings, except for screening chest radiographs, for which "normal examination" was an acceptable report. The referring physicians' preferences regarding the amount of descriptive detail included in the report were independent of their specialty, academic status, and experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7676970     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.165.4.7676970

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  12 in total

1.  Influence of radiology report format on reading time and comprehension.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; E Tyler Hall; Stacy Jaw; Bruce Reiner; Eliot Siegel
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.056

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

Authors:  M Ghali Eskander; A Leung; D Lee
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Conceptual approach for the design of radiology reporting interfaces: the talking template.

Authors:  Chris L Sistrom
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  General practitioners' views on radiology reports of plain radiography for back pain.

Authors:  Ansgar Espeland; Anders Baerheim
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.581

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

6.  Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital.

Authors:  Denise Maria Rissato Camilo; Tiago Kojun Tibana; Isa Félix Adôrno; Rômulo Florêncio Tristão Santos; Camila Klaesener; Walberth Gutierrez Junior; Edson Marchiori; Thiago Franchi Nunes
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2019 Mar-Apr

Review 7.  The challenges, opportunities, and imperative of structured reporting in medical imaging.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Innovative standardized reporting template for prostate mpMRI improves clarity and confidence in the report.

Authors:  Joseph M Caputo; Luis A Pina; Elisabeth M Sebesta; Hiram Shaish; Sven Wenske
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  Radiology reporting-from Hemingway to HAL?

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

10.  Radiology report: what is the opinion of the referring physician?

Authors:  Fernando de Castro Guimarães Rios Ignácio; Luis Ronan Marquez Ferreira de Souza; Giuseppe D'Ippolito; Mayara Martins Garcia
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2018 Sep-Oct
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.