Current Radiology Reports

, 7:31 | Cite as

The Pros and Cons of Structured Reports

  • Reham R. Haroun
  • Maysoon M. Al-HihiEmail author
  • Hani H. Abujudeh
Quality and Safety (H Abujudeh, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Quality and Safety


Purpose of Review

Structured radiology reporting has emerged as a necessary tool to achieve value-based medicine and to improve teaching of radiology residents. The pros and cons of structured reporting are compared to shed more light on its uses and aid in its further utilization.

Recent Finding

Structured reporting is a promising tool that when used in conjunction with artificial intelligence will help boost research, and facilitate extraction of data and integration of decision support tools.


This article will provide a review of the pros and cons of structured reporting.


Structured reports Pros Cons Radiology reports Standardized reports 


Compliance with Ethical Guidelines

Conflict of interest

Reham Haroun, Maysoon Al-Hihi, and Hani Abujudeh declare no potential conflicts of interest.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance and •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Wallis A, McCoubrie P. The radiology report–are we getting the message across? Clin Radiol. 2011;66(11):1015–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ••ESR. ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging. 2018;9(1):1–7. (Discusses levels of structured reporting, standardized terminology and efforts that have already been made to develop and implement structured reporting).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ••Ganeshan D, Duong PT, Probyn L, Lenchik L, McArthur TA, Retrouvey M, et al. Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(1):66–73. (This reference speaks in details about pros and cons of structured reporting. It also discusses future directions in terms of implementing structured reporting).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF. Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting. Radiology. 2013;267(1):240–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weiss DL, Langlotz CP. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology. 2008;249(3):739–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •Pinto Dos Santos D, Baessler B. Big data, artificial intelligence, and structured reporting. European radiology experimental. 2018;2(1):42. (Discusses integration between structured reporting and artificial intelligence).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    •Collard MD, Tellier J, Chowdhury AS, Lowe LH. Improvement in reporting skills of radiology residents with a structured reporting curriculum. Academic radiology. 2014;21(1):126–33. (Disucsses the potential benefits of structured reporting on for residents’ education).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sistrom C, Lanier L, Mancuso A. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. Acad Radiol. 2004;11(1):76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quattrocchi CC, Giona A, Di Martino AC, Errante Y, Scarciolla L, Mallio CA, et al. Extra-spinal incidental findings at lumbar spine MRI in the general population: a large cohort study. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(3):301–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McKee BJ, Regis SM, McKee AB, Flacke S, Wald C. Performance of ACR Lung-RADS in a clinical CT lung screening program. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(3):273–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I. Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology. 2015;274(2):464–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGurk S, Brauer K, Macfarlane TV, Duncan KA. The effect of voice recognition software on comparative error rates in radiology reports. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(970):767–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zimmerman SL, Kim W, Boonn WW. Informatics in radiology: automated structured reporting of imaging findings using the AIM standard and XML. Radiographics. 2011;31(3):881–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winter TC. The propaedeutics of structured reporting. Radiology. 2015;275(1):309–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    SrinivasaBabu A, Brooks ML. The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):547–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Powell DK, Silberzweig JE. State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(2):226–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alkasab TK, Bizzo BC, Berland LL, Nair S, Pandharipande PV, Harvey HB. Creation of an open framework for point-of-care computer-assisted reporting and decision support tools for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(9):1184–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sadigh G, Hertweck T, Kao C, Wood P, Hughes D, Henry TS, et al. Traditional text-only versus multimedia-enhanced radiology reporting: referring physicians’ perceptions of value. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(5):519–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oh SC, Cook TS, Kahn CE Jr. PORTER: a prototype system for patient-oriented radiology reporting. J Digit Imaging. 2016;29(4):450–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choksi VR, Marn CS, Bell Y, Carlos R. Efficiency of a semiautomated coding and review process for notification of critical findings in diagnostic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(4):933–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reham R. Haroun
    • 1
  • Maysoon M. Al-Hihi
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hani H. Abujudeh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Detroit Medical CenterHarper University HospitalDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Detroit Medical Center, Envision Physician ServicesHarper University HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations