Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technical Considerations and Interoperable Reporting Standards

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Structured Reporting in Radiology

Part of the book series: Imaging Informatics for Healthcare Professionals ((IIHP))

  • 910 Accesses

Abstract

Structured reporting has been discussed in radiology for many years now. More and more groups are developing strategies to implement tools and report templates in their clinical routine. It is well known that structured reporting improves satisfaction of the referring physicians with and completeness of the radiological report. Also, structured reporting may facilitate the exchange of report data, especially when report templates are shared across institutions.

Therefore, standardization of communication and templates is required. For some time, DICOM SR has been used with existing infrastructure as a standard for the exchange of structured data and clinical observations in the context of imaging. DICOM SR is constrained by templates and SOP classes to improve interoperability for specific use cases. In contrast to structured report templates, the IHE MRRT profile has been introduced. This profile defines various actors for the creation of templates, for the establishment of a template repository, and for the use of templates in the reporting process itself. IHE MRRT supports RadLex, SNOMED, and other coding schemes to be linked to the report content. Recent developments, like the RSNA’s Common Data Elements, aim at a more modular approach to improve the flexibility in building templates.

The integration of speech recognition and the possibility to voice control the reporting templates may lead to a more user-friendly experience while reporting and improve users within the radiological community.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Langlotz CP. The radiology report. Stanford; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bosmans JML, Neri E, Ratib O, Kahn CE. Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel. Insights Imaging. 2015;6(1):129–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. European Society of Radiology (ESR). ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging. 2018;9(1):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Morgan TA, Helibrun ME, Kahn CE. Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. Radiology. 2014;273(3):642–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Noumeir R. Benefits of the DICOM structured report. J Digit Imaging. 2006;19(4):295–306.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Clunie D. DICOM structured reporting. PixelMed Publishing; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. IHE Radiology Technical Committee, Herausgeber. IHE Radiology (RAD) White Paper—Management of Radiology Report Templates (MRRT). 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  8. IHE Radiology Technical Committee. IHE Radiology Technical Framework Supplement—Management of Radiology Report Templates (MRRT). 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rubin DL, Kahn CE. Common data elements in radiology. Radiology. 2017;283(3):837–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hickey P. Standardization of Roentgen-ray reports. Am J Roentgenol. 1922;9:422–5.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Langlotz CP. Enhancing the expressiveness of structured reporting systems. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13(S1):49–53.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bhargavan M, Kaye AH, Forman HP, Sunshine JH. Workload of radiologists in United States in 2006–2007 and trends since 1991–1992. Radiology. 2009;252(2):458–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, Asbun H, Bain A, Behrman SW, u. a. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15(8):1028–61.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hong SB, Lee SS, Kim JH, Kim HJ, Byun JH, Hong SM, u. a. Pancreatic cancer CT: prediction of resectability according to NCCN criteria. Radiology. 2018;289(3):710–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dimarco M, Cannella R, Pellegrino S, Iadicola D, Tutino R, Allegra F, u. a. Impact of structured report on the quality of preoperative CT staging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: assessment of intra- and inter-reader variability. Abdom Radiol. 2020;45(2):437–48.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J. Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(3):804–12.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Plumb AAO, Grieve FM, Khan SH. Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(4):386–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Camilo DMR, Tibana TK, Adôrno IF, Santos RFT, Klaesener C, Gutierrez Junior W, et al. Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital. Radiol Bras. 2019;52(2):97–103.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bosmans JML, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM. The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology. 2011;259(1):184–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pons E, Braun LMM, Hunink MGM, Kors JA. Natural language processing in radiology: a systematic review. Radiology. 2016;279(2):329–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nobel JM, Puts S, Bakers FCH, Robben SGF, Dekker ALAJ. Natural language processing in Dutch free text radiology reports: challenges in a small language area staging pulmonary oncology. J Digit Imaging. 2020. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10278-020-00327-z.

  23. Bozkurt S, Alkim E, Banerjee I, Rubin DL. Automated detection of measurements and their descriptors in radiology reports using a hybrid natural language processing algorithm. J Digit Imaging. 2019;32(4):544–53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Jungmann F. A hybrid reporting platform for extended RadLex coding combining structured reporting templates and natural language processing. J Digit Imaging. 2020;33(4):1026–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Robbins A, Horowitz D, Srinivasan M, Vincent M, Shaffer K, Sadowsky N, et al. Speech-controlled generation of radiology reports. Radiology. 1987;164(2):569–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hammana I, Lepanto L, Poder T, Bellemare C, Ly M-S. Speech recognition in the radiology department: a systematic review. Health Inf Manag J. 2015;44(2):4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Brady AP, Bello JA, Derchi LE, Fuchsjäger M, Goergen S, Krestin GP, et al. Radiology in the era of value-based healthcare: a multi-society expert statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):136.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Goldberg-Stein S, Chernyak V. Adding value in radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(9):1292–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu D, Zucherman M, Tulloss WB. Six characteristics of effective structured reporting and the inevitable integration with speech recognition. J Digit Imaging. 2006;19(1):98–104.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Pinto dos Santos D, Hempel J-M, Mildenberger P, Klöckner R, Persigehl T. Structured reporting in clinical routine. RöFo - Fortschritte Auf Dem Geb Röntgenstrahlen Bildgeb Verfahr. 2019;191(01):33–9.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pinto dos Santos D, Klos G, Kloeckner R, Oberle R, Dueber C, Mildenberger P. Development of an IHE MRRT-compliant open-source web-based reporting platform. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(1):424–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pinto dos Santos D, Scheibl S, Arnhold G, Maehringer-Kunz A, Düber C, Mildenberger P, u. a. A proof of concept for epidemiological research using structured reporting with pulmonary embolism as a use case. Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20170564.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Pinto dos Santos D, Brodehl S, Baeßler B, Arnhold G, Dratsch T, Chon S-H, u. a. Structured report data can be used to develop deep learning algorithms: a proof of concept in ankle radiographs. Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1):93.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Peter Mildenberger

  2. Biobank, National Brain Mapping Laboratory, Tehran, Iran

    Mansoor Fatehi

  3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Daniel Pinto dos Santos

Authors
  1. Peter Mildenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mansoor Fatehi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Pinto dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Mildenberger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Biobank, National Brain Mapping Laboratory, Tehran, Iran

    Mansoor Fatehi

  2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Daniel Pinto dos Santos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics (EuSoMII)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mildenberger, P., Fatehi, M., Pinto dos Santos, D. (2022). Technical Considerations and Interoperable Reporting Standards. In: Fatehi, M., Pinto dos Santos, D. (eds) Structured Reporting in Radiology. Imaging Informatics for Healthcare Professionals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91349-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91349-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91348-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91349-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation