Skip to main content
Log in

Adoption of a diagnostic certainty scale in abdominal imaging: 2-year experience at an academic institution

  • Practice
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Assess use of a diagnostic certainty scale (CS) for abdominal imaging reports and identify factors associated with greater adoption.

Methods

This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-exempt study was conducted at an academic health system. Abdominal radiology reports containing diagnostic certainty phrases (DCPs) generated 4/1/2019–3/31/2021 were identified by a natural language processing tool. Reports containing DCPs were subdivided into those with/without a CS inserted at the end. Primary outcome was monthly CS use rate in reports containing DCPs. Secondary outcomes were assessment of factors associated with CS use, and usage of recommended DCPs over time. Chi-square test was used to compare proportions; univariable and multivariable regression assessed impact of other variables.

Results

DCPs were used in 81,281/124,501 reports (65.3%). One-month post-implementation, 82/2310 (3.6%) of reports with DCPs contained the CS, increasing to 1862/4644 (40.1%) by study completion (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated reports containing recommended DCPs were more likely to have the CS (Odds Ratio [OR] 4.5; p < 0.001). Using CT as a reference, CS use was lower for ultrasound (OR 0.73; p < 0.001) and X-ray (OR 0.38; p < 0.001). There was substantial inter-radiologist variation in CS use (OR 0.01–26.3, multiple values).

Conclusion

DCPs are very common in abdominal imaging reports and can be further clarified with CS use. Although voluntary CS adoption increased 13-fold over 2 years, > 50% of reports with DCPs lacked the CS at study’s end. More stringent interventions, including embedding the scale in report templates, are likely needed to reduce inter-radiologist variation and decrease ambiguity in conveying diagnostic certainty to referring providers and patients.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hartung MP, Bickle IC, Gaillard F, Kanne JP (2020) How to Create a Great Radiology Report. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 40:1658–1670

  2. Sahni VA, Khorasani R (2016) The actionable imaging report. Abdom Radiol N Y 41:429–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lacson R, Odigie E, Wang A, Kapoor N, Shinagare A, Boland G, Khorasani R (2019) Multivariate Analysis of Radiologists’ Usage of Phrases that Convey Diagnostic Certainty. Acad Radiol 26:1229–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shinagare AB, Lacson R, Boland GW, Wang A, Silverman SG, Mayo-Smith WW, Khorasani R (2019) Radiologist Preferences, Agreement, and Variability in Phrases Used to Convey Diagnostic Certainty in Radiology Reports. J Am Coll Radiol JACR 16:458–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mityul MI, Gilcrease-Garcia B, Searleman A, Demertzis JL, Gunn AJ (2018) Interpretive Differences Between Patients and Radiologists Regarding the Diagnostic Confidence Associated With Commonly Used Phrases in the Radiology Report. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:123–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gunn AJ, Tuttle MC, Flores EJ, Mangano MD, Bennett SE, Sahani DV, Choy G, Boland GW (2016) Differing Interpretations of Report Terminology Between Primary Care Physicians and Radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol JACR 13:1525-1529.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Swensen SJ, Johnson CD (2005) Radiologic Quality and Safety: Mapping Value Into Radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 2:992–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eberhardt SC, Heilbrun ME (2018) Radiology Report Value Equation. RadioGraphics 38:1888–1896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Panicek DM, Hricak H (2016) How Sure Are You, Doctor? A Standardized Lexicon to Describe the Radiologist’s Level of Certainty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:2–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Das JP, Panicek DM (2021) Added Value of a Diagnostic Certainty Lexicon to the Radiology Report. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 41:E64–E65

  11. Wibmer A, Vargas HA, Sosa R, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, Hricak H (2014) Value of a standardized lexicon for reporting levels of diagnostic certainty in prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W651-657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shinagare AB, Alper DP, Hashemi SR, Chai JL, Hammer MM, Boland GW, Khorasani R (2020) Early adoption of a certainty scale to improve diagnostic certainty communication. J Am Coll Radiol 17:1276–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. https://github.com/Center-for-Evidence-Based-Imaging/CEBI-Miner. Accessed 5 Oct 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Laura Peterson for manuscript editing assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel I. Glazer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glazer, D.I., Budiawan, E., Burk, K.S. et al. Adoption of a diagnostic certainty scale in abdominal imaging: 2-year experience at an academic institution. Abdom Radiol 47, 1187–1195 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03391-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03391-3

Keywords

Navigation