Physicians displayed significantly greater satisfaction with the content and clarity of structured reports than with the content and clarity of conventional reports.
To compare the content, clarity, and clinical usefulness of conventional (ie, free-form) and structured radiology reports of body computed tomographic (CT) scans, as evaluated by referring physicians, attending radiologists, and radiology fellows at a tertiary care cancer center.
Materials and Methods
The institutional review board approved the study as a quality improvement initiative; no written consent was required. Three radiologists, three radiology fellows, three surgeons, and two medical oncologists evaluated 330 randomly selected conventional and structured radiology reports of body CT scans. For nonradiologists, reports were randomly selected from patients with diagnoses relevant to the physician’s area of specialization. Each physician read 15 reports in each format and rated both the content and clarity of each report from 1 (very dissatisfied or very confusing) to 10 (very satisfied or very clear). By using a previously published radiology report grading scale, physicians graded each report’s effectiveness in advancing the patient’s position on the clinical spectrum. Mixed-effects models were used to test differences between report types.
Mean content satisfaction ratings were 7.61 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.12, 8.16) for conventional reports and 8.33 (95% CI: 7.82, 8.86) for structured reports, and the difference was significant (P < .0001). Mean clarity satisfaction ratings were 7.45 (95% CI: 6.89, 8.02) for conventional reports and 8.25 (95% CI: 7.68, 8.82) for structured reports, and the difference was significant (P < .0001). Grade ratings did not differ significantly between conventional and structured reports.
Referring clinicians and radiologists found that structured reports had better content and greater clarity than conventional reports.
© RSNA, 2011
Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101913/-/DC1
- 1 . The evolution of the X-ray report. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164(2):501–502. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 2 . Electronic synoptic operative reporting: assessing the reliability and completeness of synoptic reports for pancreatic resection. J Am Coll Surg 2010;211(3):308–315. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 3 . Structured entry of radiology reports using World Wide Web technology. RadioGraphics 1996;16(3):683–691. Link, Google Scholar
- 4 . Evaluation of UltraSTAR: performance of a collaborative structured data entry system. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1994216–222. Medline, Google Scholar
- 5 . Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 2008;249(3):739–747. Link, Google Scholar
- 6 . Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 2009;64(4):386–394; 395–396. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 7 . RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. RadioGraphics 2006;26(6):1595–1597. Link, Google Scholar
- 8 . Enhancing the expressiveness and usability of structured image reporting systems. Proc AMIA Symp 2000:467–471. Medline, Google Scholar
- 9 . Standardized mammography reporting. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30(1):257–264. Medline, Google Scholar
- 10 . Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1993. Google Scholar
- 11 . The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6(12):851–860. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 12 . Corridor4DM: the Michigan method for quantitative nuclear cardiology. J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14(4):455–465. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 13 . Structured reporting in gastrointestinal endoscopy: integration with DICOM and minimal standard terminology. Int J Med Inform 1998;48(1-3):201–206. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 14 . Standardization of the surgical pathology report: formats, templates, and synoptic reports. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994;11(4):253–257. Medline, Google Scholar
- 15 . Synoptic surgical pathology reporting. Hum Pathol 1991;22(8):807–810. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 16 . Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol 2010;83(985):17–22. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 17 . A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports. Acad Radiol 2006;13(2):241–248. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 18 . Radiology report quality: a cohort study of point-and-click structured reporting versus conventional dictation. Acad Radiol 2002;9(9):1056–1061. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 19 . Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4(5):313–319. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 20 . Information content and clarity of radiologists’ reports for chest radiography. Acad Radiol 1996;3(9):709–717. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 21 . Communication of doubt and certainty in radiological reports. Br J Radiol 2000;73(873):999–1001. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 22 . Readability of the radiologic report. Invest Radiol 1992;27(3):236–239. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 23 . Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(3):591–598. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 24 . DICOM structured reporting. II. Problems and challenges in implementation for PACS workstations. RadioGraphics 2004;24(3):897–909. Link, Google Scholar
- 25 . Structured reporting in neuroradiology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2002;980:259–266. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 26 . Radiology reporting: attitudes of referring physicians. Radiology 1988;169(3):825–826. Link, Google Scholar
- 27 . Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 2009;253(1):74–80. Link, Google Scholar
- 28 . Structured radiology reporting: are we there yet? Radiology 2009;253(1):23–25. Link, Google Scholar
- 29 . Radiology reporting: returning to our image-centric roots. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187(5):1151–1155. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
Article HistoryReceived September 22, 2010; revision requested November 17; revision received February 3, 2011; accepted February 21; final version accepted March 2.
Published online: July 2011
Published in print: July 2011