K White1, K Berbaum, W L Smith. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors studied radiologists' patterns of using old reports and previous radiographs in the interpretation of current radiographic studies. Supplying information from previous studies is considered necessary for accurate interpretation; however, it is not clear how this information is used. METHODS: Eighteen radiologists interpreted 305 plain-film studies in a general radiologic interpretation area. Radiologists described their perceptions of the use of previous radiographs and reports in film interpretation. RESULTS: Overall, old films were used for 99% of interpretations and previous reports were used for 65%. Prior information increased confidence in 89% of cases, influenced diagnosis in 56% of cases, and assisted in detecting new pathology in 6% of interpretations. Old radiographs were judged most valuable in documenting the progression, regression, or stability of disease in 89% of cases. Previous reports were principally used to obtain patient history (43%). In no cases did the radiologist perceive that the old reports assisted in locating new pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Old films are judged more valuable than reports for documenting disease progress, and radiologists are unlikely to accept written reports as a substitute. Previous reports are used principally to improve clinical histories, a function that might be eliminated if adequate clinical data could be captured by other means.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors studied radiologists' patterns of using old reports and previous radiographs in the interpretation of current radiographic studies. Supplying information from previous studies is considered necessary for accurate interpretation; however, it is not clear how this information is used. METHODS: Eighteen radiologists interpreted 305 plain-film studies in a general radiologic interpretation area. Radiologists described their perceptions of the use of previous radiographs and reports in film interpretation. RESULTS: Overall, old films were used for 99% of interpretations and previous reports were used for 65%. Prior information increased confidence in 89% of cases, influenced diagnosis in 56% of cases, and assisted in detecting new pathology in 6% of interpretations. Old radiographs were judged most valuable in documenting the progression, regression, or stability of disease in 89% of cases. Previous reports were principally used to obtain patient history (43%). In no cases did the radiologist perceive that the old reports assisted in locating new pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Old films are judged more valuable than reports for documenting disease progress, and radiologists are unlikely to accept written reports as a substitute. Previous reports are used principally to improve clinical histories, a function that might be eliminated if adequate clinical data could be captured by other means.
Authors: Linda Berg; Oivind Gjertsen; Christian Hellum; Gesche Neckelmann; Lars G Johnsen; Geir E Eide; Ansgar Espeland Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Paras Lakhani; Elliot D Menschik; Alberto F Goldszal; Joseph P Murray; Mark G Weiner; Curtis P Langlotz Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Mihra S Taljanovic; Tim B Hunter; Kimberly A Fitzpatrick; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Thomas L Pope Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2003-06-03 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Uta Zaspel; David W Denning; Arne J Lemke; Reginald Greene; Dirk Schürmann; Georg Maschmeyer; Markus Ruhnke; Raoul Herbrecht; Patricia Ribaud; Olivier Lortholary; Harmien Zonderland; Klaus F Rabe; Rainer Röttgen; Roland Bittner; Klaus Neumann; Joerg W Oestmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-08-11 Impact factor: 5.315