Structured reporting of x-rays for atraumatic shoulder pain: advantages over free text?

Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential

OBJECTIVES

Structured reporting (SR) in radiology reporting is suggested to be a promising tool in clinical practice. In order to implement such an emerging innovation, it is necessary to verify that radiology reporting can benefit from SR. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to explore the level of evidence of structured reporting in radiology. Additionally, this review provides an overview on the current status of SR in radiology.

METHODS

A narrative systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the syntax 'radiol*' AND 'structur*' AND 'report*'. Structured reporting was divided in SR level 1, structured layout (use of templates and checklists), and SR level 2, structured content (a drop-down menu, point-and-click or clickable decision trees). Two reviewers screened the search results and included all quantitative experimental studies that discussed SR in radiology. A thematic analysis was performed to appraise the evidence level.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 63 relevant full text articles out of a total of 8561 articles. Thematic analysis resulted in 44 SR level 1 and 19 level 2 reports. Only one paper was scored as highest level of evidence, which concerned a double cohort study with randomized trial design.

CONCLUSION

The level of evidence for implementing SR in radiology is still low and outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

KEY POINTS

• Structured reporting is increasingly being used in radiology, especially in abdominal and neuroradiological CT and MRI reports. • SR can be subdivided into structured layout (SR level 1) and structured content (SR level 2), in which the first is defined as being a template in which the reporter has to report; the latter is an IT-based manner in which the content of the radiology report can be inserted and displayed into the report. • Despite the extensive amount of research on the subject of structured reporting, the level of evidence is low.

Study on structured method of Chinese MRI report of nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Background

Image text is an important text data in the medical field at it can assist clinicians in making a diagnosis. However, due to the diversity of languages, most descriptions in the image text are unstructured data. The same medical phenomenon may also be described in various ways, such that it remains challenging to conduct text structure analysis. The aim of this research is to develop a feasible approach that can automatically convert nasopharyngeal cancer reports into structured text and build a knowledge network.

Methods

In this work, we compare commonly used named entity recognition (NER) models, choose the optimal model as our triplet extraction model, and present a Chinese structuring algorithm. Finally, we visualize the results of the algorithm in the form of a knowledge network of nasopharyngeal cancer.

Results

In NER, both accuracy and recall of the BERT-CRF model reached 99%. The structured extraction rate is 84.74%, and the accuracy is 89.39%. The architecture based on recurrent neural network does not rely on medical dictionaries or word segmentation tools and can realize triplet recognition.

Conclusions

The BERT-CRF model has high performance in NER, and the triplet can reflect the content of the image report. This work can provide technical support for the construction of a nasopharyngeal cancer database.

What does the orthopaedic surgeon want in the radiology report?

Complementary imaging is crucial in the diagnosis and management of the spectrum of Musculoskeletal (MSK) pathologies. Like in all medical specialities, its role in trauma and orthopaedic conditions has evolved. A radiology report following an imaging study should provide an accurate, timely interpretation of images and be presented in a format that allows formal analysis or clarification of a patient's diagnostic dilemma. It is essential that it is descriptive enough to allow clinico-pathological correlation to a patient's condition. A high-quality report follows clinical governance processes, provides clinical feedback, and when appropriate, incorporates advice regarding differential diagnosis or further investigation/management that can be undertaken, permitting the attending clinician to formulate a suitable treatment plan for their patient. In this narrative we explore common radiological investigations and reporting information in trauma and orthopaedic conditions, which would be useful to the attending surgeon.

Structured Reporting in the Characterization of Renal Cysts by Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Using the Bosniak Classification System-Improvement of Report Quality and Interdisciplinary Communication

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of structured reporting (SR) compared to conventional free-text reporting (FTR) in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of cystic renal lesions, based on the Bosniak classification.

METHODS

Fifty patients with cystic renal lesions who underwent CEUS were included in this single-center study. FTR created in clinical routine were compared to SR retrospectively generated by using a structured reporting template. Two experienced urologists evaluated the reports regarding integrity, effort for information extraction, linguistic quality, and overall quality.

RESULTS

The required information could easily be extracted by the reviewers in 100% of SR vs. 82% of FTR (p < 0.001). The reviewers trusted the information given by SR significantly more with a mean of 5.99 vs. 5.52 for FTR (p < 0.001). SR significantly improved the linguistic quality (6.0 for SR vs. 5.68 for FTR (p < 0.001)) and the overall report quality (5.98 for SR vs. 5.58 for FTR (p < 0.001)).

CONCLUSIONS

SR significantly increases the quality of radiologic reports in CEUS examinations of cystic renal lesions compared to conventional FTR and represents a promising approach to facilitate interdisciplinary communication in the future.

[Quality in the appraisal of head and neck sonography results in university hospitals-a random sample]

Hintergrund

Die Ultraschalldiagnostik gilt für den Radiologen, Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Arzt (HNO) oder Mund-Kiefer-Gesichts-Chirurgen als Standard in der Abklärung zahlreicher Pathologien. Es besteht ein Konsens, dass die digitale Dokumentation heute dringend notwendig ist, um die Qualität der sonographischen Dokumentationen zu verbessern und zu standardisieren. Es häufen sich Publikationen zur Implementierung standardisierter Befunddokumentation einschließlich der Kopf- und Halssonographie.

Ziel der Arbeit

Die vorliegende Arbeit zielt darauf ab, die Qualität von routinemäßig angefertigten Kopf- und Halssonographiebefunden nach Kriterien der Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung (KV) Bayern an einer Auswahl deutscher HNO-Universitätskliniken stichprobenartig zu ermitteln.

Material und Methoden

Insgesamt wurden retrospektiv 70 zufällig ausgewählte, anonymisierte schriftliche Befunde einschließlich Bildmaterial von insgesamt 7 HNO-Universitätskliniken stichprobenartig nach KV-Kriterien durch einen erfahrenen Prüfer der KV Bayern ausgewertet und deskriptiv analysiert.

Ergebnisse

Von 70 Befunden konnten 69 ausgewertet werden. Die Dokumentationsvollständigkeit lag im Mittel bei 80,6 %. Neun Befunde waren vollständig korrekt dokumentiert (13 %). Die Dokumentationsvollständigkeit der einzelnen Kliniken lag zwischen 68,1 % und 93 %. Mit 88,5 % vs. 75 % erbrachte eine strukturierte Befundung eine höhere Befundvollständigkeit. In 75 % der Fälle verfügten die Kliniken mit strukturiertem Befund auch über digitale Dokumentationslösungen.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Vollständigkeit und Qualität von routinemäßig angefertigten Kopf- und Halssonographiebefunden an einer Auswahl von HNO-Universitätskliniken ist insgesamt optimierbar. Die Implementierung strukturierter Befundmasken und die Umstellung der analogen Dokumentation auf digitale Lösungen sowie Vernetzung mit dem Klinikinformationssystem (KIS) und Bildarchivierungs- und Kommunikationssystem (PACS) sollte weiter vorangetrieben werden. Darüber hinaus sind leitende Ärzte dazu angehalten, die Befundqualität unerfahrener Kollegen regelmäßig zu prüfen und im Rahmen der Facharztausbildung auf die Erfüllung entsprechender Standards wie der KV-Ultraschallvereinbarung hinzuarbeiten.

The role of structured reporting and structured operation planning in functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Computed tomography (CT) scans represent the gold standard in the planning of functional endoscopic sinus surgeries (FESS). Yet, radiologists and otolaryngologists have different perspectives on these scans. In general, residents often struggle with aspects involved in both reporting and operation planning. The aim of this study was to compare the completeness of structured reports (SR) of preoperative CT images and structured operation planning (SOP) to conventional reports (CR) and conventional operation planning (COP) to potentially improve future treatment decisions on an individual level. In total, 30 preoperative CT scans obtained for surgical planning of patients scheduled for FESS were evaluated using SR and CR by radiology residents. Subsequently, otolaryngology residents performed a COP using free texts and a SOP using a specific template. All radiology reports and operation plannings were evaluated by two experienced FESS surgeons regarding their completeness for surgical planning. User satisfaction of otolaryngology residents was assessed by using visual analogue scales. Overall radiology report completeness was significantly higher using SRs regarding surgically important structures compared to CRs (84.4 vs. 22.0%, p<0.001). SOPs produced significantly higher completeness ratings (97% vs. 39.4%, p<0.001) regarding pathologies and anatomical variances. Moreover, time efficiency was not significantly impaired by implementation of SR (148 s vs. 160 s, p = 0.61) and user satisfaction was significantly higher for SOP (VAS 8.1 vs. 4.1, p<0.001). Implementation of SR and SOP results in a significantly increased completeness of radiology reports and operation planning for FESS. Consequently, the combination of both facilitates surgical planning and may decrease potential risks during FESS.

Improving radiologic communication in oncology: a single-centre experience with structured reporting for cancer patients

Objectives

Our aim was to develop a structured reporting concept (structured oncology report, SOR) for general follow-up assessment of cancer patients in clinical routine. Furthermore, we analysed the report quality of SOR compared to conventional reports (CR) as assessed by referring oncologists.

Methods

SOR was designed to provide standardised layout, tabulated tumour burden documentation and standardised conclusion using uniform terminology. A software application for reporting was programmed to ensure consistency of layout and vocabulary and to facilitate utilisation of SOR. Report quality was analysed for 25 SOR and 25 CR retrospectively by 6 medical oncologists using a 7-point scale (score 1 representing the best score) for 6 questionnaire items addressing different elements of report quality and overall satisfaction. A score of ≤ 3 was defined as a positive rating.

Results

In the first year after full implementation, 7471 imaging examinations were reported using SOR. The proportion of SOR in relation to all oncology reports increased from 49 to 95% within a few months. Report quality scores were better for SOR for each questionnaire item (p < 0.001 each). Averaged over all questionnaire item scores were 1.98 ± 1.22 for SOR and 3.05 ± 1.93 for CR (p < 0.001). The overall satisfaction score was 2.15 ± 1.32 for SOR and 3.39 ± 2.08 for CR (p < 0.001). The proportion of positive ratings was higher for SOR (89% versus 67%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Department-wide structured reporting for follow-up imaging performed for assessment of anticancer treatment efficacy is feasible using a dedicated software application. Satisfaction of referring oncologist with report quality is superior for structured reports.

The use of structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound ensures time-efficiency and report quality during residency

PURPOSE

Free text reports (FTR) of head and neck ultrasound studies are currently deployed in most departments. Because of a lack of composition and language, these reports vary greatly in terms of quality and reliability. This may impair the learning process during residency. The purpose of the study was to analyze the longitudinal effects of using structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound studies during residency.

METHODS

Attending residents (n = 24) of a tripartite course on head and neck ultrasound, accredited by the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM), were randomly allocated to pictures of common diseases. Both SRs and FTRs were compiled. All reports were analyzed concerning completeness, acquired time and legibility. Overall user contentment was evaluated by a questionnaire.

RESULTS

SRs achieved significantly higher ratings regarding completeness (95.6% vs. 26.4%, p < 0.001), description of pathologies (72.2% vs. 58.9%, p < 0.001) and legibility (100% vs. 52.4%, p < 0.001) with a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa 0.9). Reports were finalized significantly faster (99.1 s vs. 115.0 s, p < 0.001) and user contentment was significantly better when using SRs (8.3 vs. 6.3, p < 0.001). In particular, only SRs showed a longitudinally increasing time efficiency (- 20.1 s, p = 0.036) while maintaining consistent completeness ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SRs of head and neck ultrasound studies results in an increased longitudinal time-efficiency while upholding the report quality at the same time. This may indicate an additive learning effect of structured reporting. Superior outcomes in terms of comprehensiveness, legibility and time-efficiency can be observed immediately after implementation.

Creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages through multilingual structured reporting

OBJECTIVES

Globalization and migration are increasing the demand for reports in different languages. We aimed to examine if structured reports created by non-German-speaking radiologists with multilingual templates show significant differences in quality to structured reports and free-text reports by German native speakers.

METHODS

We used structured templates that allow radiologists to report in their mother tongue and then switch the report language to German or English automatically using proprietary software. German- and English-speaking radiology residents created structured reports in both German and English with these templates. Reports for three different exam types were created (intensive care chest x-ray, shoulder x-ray specifically for degenerative processes, and CT pulmonary angiogram for pulmonary embolism). The report quality of automatically translated German structured reports by English-speaking radiologists and German structured reports by German radiologists was then evaluated by German clinicians with a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to assess attributes including content, comprehensibility, clinical consequences, and overall quality.

RESULTS

Structured reports by English-speaking radiologists that were automatically translated into German and German structured reports by German radiologists both received very high or high overall quality ratings in the majority of cases, showing no significant differences in quality. Likewise, no significant differences were observed between the two report types regarding comprehensibility and clinical consequences. Structured reports by German radiologists received significantly better ratings for overall quality and comprehensibility compared to free-text reports by German radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Multilingual structured reporting templates may serve as a feasible tool for creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages.

KEY POINTS

• Multilingualism in structured reporting templates can be a useful tool for creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages. • German reports created with multilingual structured reporting templates by English-speaking radiologists and German structured reports by German radiologists exhibit no significant differences in overall report quality. • Multilingual structured reporting templates can help radiologists overcome communication barriers and facilitate teleradiology.

Impact of structured reporting on developing head and neck ultrasound skills

BACKGROUND

Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. This is a serious obstacle to the learning process of the modality due to a missing report structure and terminology. Therefore, there is a great inter-observer variability in overall report quality. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of structured reporting on the learning process as indicated by the overall report quality of head and neck ultrasound examinations within medical school education.

METHODS

Following an immersion course on head and neck ultrasound, previously documented images of three common pathologies were handed out to 58 medical students who asked to create both standard free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR). A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion and readability by two independent raters (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI). Ratings were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa). Additionally, a questionnaire was utilized to evaluate user satisfaction.

RESULTS

SRs received significantly better ratings in terms of report completeness (97.7% vs. 53.5%, p < 0.001) regarding all items. In addition, pathologies were described in more detail using SRs (70% vs. 51.1%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 54.4%, p < 0.001). Mean time to complete was significantly lower (79.6 vs. 205.4 s, p < 0.001) and user satisfaction was significantly higher when using SRs (8.5 vs. 4.1, p < 0.001). Also, inter-rater reliability was very high (Fleiss' kappa 0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations provide more detailed information with a better readability in a time-saving manner within medical education. Also, medical students may benefit from SRs in their learning process due to the structured approach and standardized terminology.

Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations

Background

Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner’s individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations.

Methods

Both standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss’ kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI).

Results

By comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs’ completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ kappa 0.92).

Conclusions

As compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.