Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 52–68 | Cite as

Development and Validation of Queries Using Structured Query Language (SQL) to Determine the Utilization of Comparison Imaging in Radiology Reports Stored on PACS

  • Paras Lakhani
  • Elliot D. Menschik
  • Alberto F. Goldszal
  • Joseph P. Murray
  • Mark G. Weiner
  • Curtis P. Langlotz
Article

The purpose of this research was to develop queries that quantify the utilization of comparison imaging in free-text radiology reports. The queries searched for common phrases that indicate whether comparison imaging was utilized, not available, or not mentioned. The queries were iteratively refined and tested on random samples of 100 reports with human review as a reference standard until the precision and recall of the queries did not improve significantly between iterations. Then, query accuracy was assessed on a new random sample of 200 reports. Overall accuracy of the queries was 95.6%. The queries were then applied to a database of 1.8 million reports. Comparisons were made to prior images in 38.69% of the reports (693,955/1,793,754), were unavailable in 18.79% (337,028/1,793,754), and were not mentioned in 42.52% (762,771/1,793,754). The results show that queries of text reports can achieve greater than 95% accuracy in determining the utilization of prior images.

Key words

Query structured query language (SQL) databases 

References

  1. 1.
    White, K, Smith, WL 1994The role of previous radiographs and reports in the interpretation of current radiographsInvest Radiol29263265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aideyan, UO, Berbaum, K, Smith, WL 1995Influence of prior radiologic information on the interpretation of radiographic examinationsAcad Radiol2205208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sumkin, JH, Holbert, BL, Herrmann, JS, Hakim, CA, Ganott, MA, Poller, WR, Shah, R, Hardesty, LA, Gur, D 2003Optimal reference mammography: a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examinationAm J Roentgenol180343346Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thurfjell, MG, Vitak, B, Azavedo, E, Svane, G, Thurfjell, E 2000Effect of sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammogramsActa Radiol415256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christiansen, CL, Wang, F, Barton, MB, Kreuter, W, Elmore, JG, Gelfand, AE, Fletcher, SW 2000Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammogramsJ Natl Cancer Inst9216571666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American College of Radiology2001ACR Standard for Communication: Diagnostic RadiologyAmerican College of RadiologyReston, VAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American College of Radiology2001ACR Standard for the Performance of Pediatric and Adult Chest RadiographyAmerican College of RadiologyReston, VAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Callaway, MP, Boggis, CR, Astley, SA, Hutt, I 1997The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinomaClin Radiol52527529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quekel, LG, Goei, R, Kessels, AG, Engelshoven, JM 2001Detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph: impact of previous films, clinical information, double reading, and dual readingJ Clin Epidemiol5411461150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson, TE, Nijhawan, VK, Helvie, MA 1996Normal mammograms and the practice of obtaining previous mammograms: usefulness and costsRadiology198661663PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bassett, LW, Shayestehfar, B, Hirbawi, I 1994Obtaining previous mammograms for comparison: usefulness and costsAm J Roentgenol16310831086Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Channin, DS 2001Is it time for ‘PACSter’?J Digit Imaging145253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ooijen, PM, Bongaerts, AH, Witkamp, R, Wijker, A, Tukker, W, Oudkerk, M 2004Multi-detector computed tomography and 3-dimensional imaging in a multi-vendor picture archiving and communications systems (PACS) environmentAcad Radiol11649660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reiner, BI, Siegel, EL, Hooper, FJ, Pomerantz, S, Dahlke, A, Rallis, D 2001Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional filmAm J Roentgenol176861864Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berry, CC 1990A tutorial on confidence intervals for proportions in diagnostic radiologyAm J Roentgenol154477480Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hustinx, R, Benard, F, Alavi, A 2002Whole-body FDG-PET imaging in the management of patients with cancerSemin Nucl Med323546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cascade, PN, Berlin, L 1999Malpractice issues in radiology: American College of Radiology Standard for CommunicationAm J Roentgenol17314391442Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berlin, L 1999Comparing new radiographs with those obtained previouslyAm J Roentgenol17236Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berlin, L 2000Must new radiographs be compared with all previous radiographs, or only with the most recently obtained radiographs?Am J Roentgenol174611615Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SCAR (Society for Computer Applications in Radiology) 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paras Lakhani
    • 1
  • Elliot D. Menschik
    • 2
  • Alberto F. Goldszal
    • 1
  • Joseph P. Murray
    • 2
  • Mark G. Weiner
    • 3
  • Curtis P. Langlotz
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Hx Technologies Inc.PhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.MoorestownUSA

Personalised recommendations