Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 9, pp 2243–2250 | Cite as

Structured reporting of CT enterography for inflammatory bowel disease: effect on key feature reporting, accuracy across training levels, and subjective assessment of disease by referring physicians

  • Benjamin Wildman-TobrinerEmail author
  • Brian C. Allen
  • Mustafa R. Bashir
  • Morgan Camp
  • Chad Miller
  • Lauren E. Fiorillo
  • Alan Cubre
  • Sanaz Javadi
  • Alex D. Bibbey
  • Wendy L. Ehieli
  • Nancy McGreal
  • Reinaldo Quevedo
  • Julie K. Thacker
  • Maciej Mazurowski
  • Tracy A. Jaffe



To compare the content and accuracy of structured reporting (SR) versus non-structured reporting (NSR) for computed tomographic enterography (CTE) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Materials and methods

This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study included 30 adult subjects (15 male, 15 female; mean age 41.9 years) with IBD imaged with CTE. Nine radiologists (3 faculty, 3 abdominal imaging fellows, and 3 senior radiology residents) independently interpreted all examinations using both NSR and SR, separated by four weeks. Reports were assessed for documentation of 15 key reporting features and a subset of 5 features was assessed for accuracy. Thirty faculty reports (15 NSR [5 per reader] and 15 SR [5 per reader]) were randomly selected for review by three referring physicians, who independently rated quality metrics for each report.


NSR documented the presence or absence of 8.2 ± 2.2 key features, while SR documented 14.6 ± 0.5 features (p < 0.001). SR resulted in increased documentation of 13 of 15 features including stricture (p < 0.001), fistula (p < 0.001), fluid collection (p = 0.003), and perianal disease (p < 0.001). Among a subset of five features, accuracy for diagnosing multifocal disease was minimally increased when using SR (76% NSR vs. 83% SR; p = 0.01), but accuracy for other features was not affected by report type. Referring physicians significantly preferred SR based on ease of information extraction (p < 0.01).


Structured reporting of CTE for IBD improved documentation of key reporting features for trainees and faculty, though there was minimal impact on accuracy. Referring physicians subjectively preferred the structured reports.


Structured report Standardized report Inflammatory bowel disease Enterography CT 


Compliance with ethical standards


No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.


  1. 1.
    European Society of Rad (2010) The future role of radiology in healthcare. Insights Imaging 1(1):2–11. doi: 10.1007/s13244-009-0007-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Radiological Society of North America (2016). RSNA radiology reporting initiative. Available at: Accessed November 30, 2016
  3. 3.
    Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, et al. (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274(2):464–472. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140206 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American College of Radiology (2014). Liver imaging reporting and data system. Available at: Accessed February 1, 2017
  5. 5.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Radiological Society of North America (2016). Radreport. Available at: Accessed November 30, 2016
  7. 7.
    Sistrom CL, Langlotz CP (2005) A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2(2):159–167. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.06.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL (2007) Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 4(5):313–319. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.01.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260(1):174–181. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101913 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J (2005) Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185(3):804–812. doi: 10.2214/ajr.185.3.01850804 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2009) Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 253(1):74–80. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2531090138 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiss DL, Langlotz CP (2008) Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 249(3):739–747. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2493080988249/3/739 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marcal LP, Fox PS, Evans DB, et al. (2015) Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging. Abdom Imaging 40(7):2391–2397. doi: 10.1007/s00261-015-0420-110.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Davis JT, et al. (2016) Structured reporting of magnetic resonance enterography for pediatric Crohn’s disease: effect on key feature reporting and subjective assessment of disease by referring physicians. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol . doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.12.001 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park MJ, Lim JS (2013) Computed tomography enterography for evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Endosc 46(4):327–366. doi: 10.5946/ce.2013.46.4.327 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baker ME, Hara AK, Platt JF, Maglinte DD, Fletcher JG (2015) CT enterography for Crohn’s disease: optimal technique and imaging issues. Abdom Imaging 40(5):938–952. doi: 10.1007/s00261-015-0357-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leyendecker JR, Bloomfeld RS, DiSantis DJ, et al. (2009) MR enterography in the management of patients with Crohn disease. Radiographics 29(6):1827–1846. doi: 10.1148/rg.29609551029/6/1827 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooper VF, Goodhartz LA, Nemcek AA Jr, Ryu RK (2008) Radiology resident interpretations of on-call imaging studies: the incidence of major discrepancies. Acad Radiol 15(9):1198–1204. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruchman RB, Jaeger J, Wiggins EF 3rd, et al. (2007) Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(3):523–526. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2307 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lin E, Powell DK, Kagetsu NJ (2014) Efficacy of a checklist-style structured radiology reporting template in reducing resident misses on cervical spine computed tomography examinations. J Digit Imaging 27(5):588–593. doi: 10.1007/s10278-014-9703-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Collard MD, Tellier J, Chowdhury AS, Lowe LH (2014) Improvement in reporting skills of radiology residents with a structured reporting curriculum. Acad Radiol 21(1):126–133. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hofmann AF, Poley JR (1972) Role of bile acid malabsorption in pathogenesis of diarrhea and steatorrhea in patients with ileal resection. I. Response to cholestyramine or replacement of dietary long chain triglyceride by medium chain triglyceride. Gastroenterology 62(5):918–934PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sandborn WJ (2009) How to avoid treating irritable bowel syndrome with biologic therapy for inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis 27(Suppl 1):80–84. doi: 10.1159/000268125 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maglinte DD, Gourtsoyiannis N, Rex D, Howard TJ, Kelvin FM (2003) Classification of small bowel Crohn’s subtypes based on multimodality imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 41(2):285–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(3):584–588. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.14053 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Society of R (2011) Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European society of radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 2(2):93–96. doi: 10.1007/s13244-011-0066-766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kushner DC, Lucey LL, American College of R (2005) Diagnostic radiology reporting and communication: the ACR guideline. J Am Coll Radiol 2(1):15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.08.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Powell DK, Lin E, Silberzweig JE, Kagetsu NJ (2014) Introducing radiology report checklists among residents: adherence rates when suggesting versus requiring their use and early experience in improving accuracy. Acad Radiol 21(3):415–423. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.12.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM (2011) The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259(1):184–195. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR (2001) Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(3):591–598. doi: 10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760591 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Wildman-Tobriner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian C. Allen
    • 1
  • Mustafa R. Bashir
    • 1
    • 2
  • Morgan Camp
    • 1
  • Chad Miller
    • 1
  • Lauren E. Fiorillo
    • 3
  • Alan Cubre
    • 1
  • Sanaz Javadi
    • 4
  • Alex D. Bibbey
    • 1
  • Wendy L. Ehieli
    • 1
  • Nancy McGreal
    • 5
  • Reinaldo Quevedo
    • 5
  • Julie K. Thacker
    • 6
  • Maciej Mazurowski
    • 1
  • Tracy A. Jaffe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyDuke University HospitalDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Magnetic Resonance DevelopmentDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyOhio State University Wexner Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Texas MD AndersonHoustonUSA
  5. 5.Department of GastroenterologyDuke University HospitalDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryDuke University HospitalDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations