Radiology report clarity: A cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation

Annette Johnson, Michael Y.M. Chen, Michael E. Zapadka, Eric M. Lyders, Benjamin Littenberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine if radiology residents who use a structured reporting system (SRS) produce reports of greater clarity than residents who use free-text dictation to report cranial MRimaging in patients with clinical suspicion of stroke. Methods: This double-cohort study included residents creating reports for 25 cranial MR imaging studies using an SRS in the intervention group and free text in the control group (report n = 1,685). Attending physicians from multiple subspecialties were surveyed seeking clarity ratings of randomly selected reports. Two neuroradiology fellows rated the clarity of 180 of the reports. Clarity ratings were analyzed by using Wilcoxons signed-rank test for paired data and the Mann-Whitney U test for unpaired data. Results: Forty-three of 95 surveyed physicians returned completed surveys, with mean clarity ratings for SRS (4.9) and free-text (5.1) reports that did not differ significantly. Respondents comments most often referred to confusing syntax, unfamiliar terms, or format preferences. Fellow raters rated the clarity of SRS reports lower than that of free-text reports (P < .001). Conclusions: The use of an SRS to create MRI reports did not seem to improve or worsen attending physicians perceptions of report clarity. Experience level may affect clarity-related report preferences. Future SRS should probably include definitions of key terms and be formatted to minimize syntactical errors. Key Words: Structured reporting, radiology, quality, clarity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)501-506
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume7
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010

Fingerprint

Radiology
Cohort Studies
Nonparametric Statistics
Physicians
Stroke
Control Groups
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Structured reporting
  • clarity
  • quality
  • radiology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Radiology report clarity : A cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. / Johnson, Annette; Chen, Michael Y.M.; Zapadka, Michael E.; Lyders, Eric M.; Littenberg, Benjamin.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 7, No. 7, 01.01.2010, p. 501-506.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Johnson, Annette ; Chen, Michael Y.M. ; Zapadka, Michael E. ; Lyders, Eric M. ; Littenberg, Benjamin. / Radiology report clarity : A cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. In: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2010 ; Vol. 7, No. 7. pp. 501-506.
@article{4208cd3d1fd649dfab47309a5df0726a,
title = "Radiology report clarity: A cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine if radiology residents who use a structured reporting system (SRS) produce reports of greater clarity than residents who use free-text dictation to report cranial MRimaging in patients with clinical suspicion of stroke. Methods: This double-cohort study included residents creating reports for 25 cranial MR imaging studies using an SRS in the intervention group and free text in the control group (report n = 1,685). Attending physicians from multiple subspecialties were surveyed seeking clarity ratings of randomly selected reports. Two neuroradiology fellows rated the clarity of 180 of the reports. Clarity ratings were analyzed by using Wilcoxons signed-rank test for paired data and the Mann-Whitney U test for unpaired data. Results: Forty-three of 95 surveyed physicians returned completed surveys, with mean clarity ratings for SRS (4.9) and free-text (5.1) reports that did not differ significantly. Respondents comments most often referred to confusing syntax, unfamiliar terms, or format preferences. Fellow raters rated the clarity of SRS reports lower than that of free-text reports (P < .001). Conclusions: The use of an SRS to create MRI reports did not seem to improve or worsen attending physicians perceptions of report clarity. Experience level may affect clarity-related report preferences. Future SRS should probably include definitions of key terms and be formatted to minimize syntactical errors. Key Words: Structured reporting, radiology, quality, clarity.",
keywords = "Structured reporting, clarity, quality, radiology",
author = "Annette Johnson and Chen, {Michael Y.M.} and Zapadka, {Michael E.} and Lyders, {Eric M.} and Benjamin Littenberg",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "501--506",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiology report clarity

T2 - A cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation

AU - Johnson, Annette

AU - Chen, Michael Y.M.

AU - Zapadka, Michael E.

AU - Lyders, Eric M.

AU - Littenberg, Benjamin

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine if radiology residents who use a structured reporting system (SRS) produce reports of greater clarity than residents who use free-text dictation to report cranial MRimaging in patients with clinical suspicion of stroke. Methods: This double-cohort study included residents creating reports for 25 cranial MR imaging studies using an SRS in the intervention group and free text in the control group (report n = 1,685). Attending physicians from multiple subspecialties were surveyed seeking clarity ratings of randomly selected reports. Two neuroradiology fellows rated the clarity of 180 of the reports. Clarity ratings were analyzed by using Wilcoxons signed-rank test for paired data and the Mann-Whitney U test for unpaired data. Results: Forty-three of 95 surveyed physicians returned completed surveys, with mean clarity ratings for SRS (4.9) and free-text (5.1) reports that did not differ significantly. Respondents comments most often referred to confusing syntax, unfamiliar terms, or format preferences. Fellow raters rated the clarity of SRS reports lower than that of free-text reports (P < .001). Conclusions: The use of an SRS to create MRI reports did not seem to improve or worsen attending physicians perceptions of report clarity. Experience level may affect clarity-related report preferences. Future SRS should probably include definitions of key terms and be formatted to minimize syntactical errors. Key Words: Structured reporting, radiology, quality, clarity.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine if radiology residents who use a structured reporting system (SRS) produce reports of greater clarity than residents who use free-text dictation to report cranial MRimaging in patients with clinical suspicion of stroke. Methods: This double-cohort study included residents creating reports for 25 cranial MR imaging studies using an SRS in the intervention group and free text in the control group (report n = 1,685). Attending physicians from multiple subspecialties were surveyed seeking clarity ratings of randomly selected reports. Two neuroradiology fellows rated the clarity of 180 of the reports. Clarity ratings were analyzed by using Wilcoxons signed-rank test for paired data and the Mann-Whitney U test for unpaired data. Results: Forty-three of 95 surveyed physicians returned completed surveys, with mean clarity ratings for SRS (4.9) and free-text (5.1) reports that did not differ significantly. Respondents comments most often referred to confusing syntax, unfamiliar terms, or format preferences. Fellow raters rated the clarity of SRS reports lower than that of free-text reports (P < .001). Conclusions: The use of an SRS to create MRI reports did not seem to improve or worsen attending physicians perceptions of report clarity. Experience level may affect clarity-related report preferences. Future SRS should probably include definitions of key terms and be formatted to minimize syntactical errors. Key Words: Structured reporting, radiology, quality, clarity.

KW - Structured reporting

KW - clarity

KW - quality

KW - radiology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928096534&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928096534&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.008

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84928096534

VL - 7

SP - 501

EP - 506

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 7

ER -