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
- 485 Downloads
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.
KeywordsStructured 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.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.
- 2.Radiological Society of North America (2016). RSNA radiology reporting initiative. Available at: http://reportingwiki.rsna.org/. Accessed November 30, 2016
- 4.American College of Radiology (2014). Liver imaging reporting and data system. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LIRADS. Accessed February 1, 2017
- 6.Radiological Society of North America (2016). Radreport. Available at: http://www.radreport.org/. Accessed November 30, 2016
- 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.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