Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the effect of structured reports (SRs) in comparison to non-structured narrative free text (NRs) shoulder MRI reports and potential effects of both types of reporting on completeness, readability, linguistic quality and referring surgeons’ satisfaction.
Methods
Thirty patients after trauma or with suspected degenerative changes of the shoulder were included in this study (2012–2015). All patients underwent shoulder MRI for further assessment and possible surgical planning. NRs were generated during clinical routine. Corresponding SRs were created using a dedicated template. All 60 reports were evaluated by two experienced orthopaedic shoulder surgeons using a questionnaire that included eight questions.
Results
Eighty per cent of the SRs were fully complete without any missing key features whereas only 45% of the NRs were fully complete (p < 0.001). The extraction of information was regarded to be easy in 92% of the SRs and 63% of the NRs. The overall quality of the SRs was rated better than that of the NRs (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Structured reporting of shoulder MRI improves the readability as well as the linguistic quality of radiological reports, and potentially leads to a higher satisfaction of referring physicians.
Key Points
• Structured MRI reports of the shoulder improve readability.
• Structured reporting facilitates information extraction.
• Referring physicians prefer structured reports to narrative free text reports.
• Structured MRI reports of the shoulder can reduce radiologist re-consultations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CI 95%:
-
Confidence interval
- MSK:
-
Musculoskeletal
- NRs:
-
Narrative free text reports
- SRs:
-
Structured reports
- std:
-
Standard deviation
References
Sinitsyn VE, Komarova MA, Mershina EA (2014) Radiology report: past, present and future. Vestn Rentgenol Radiol 3:35–40
Sierra AE, Bisesi MA, Rosenbaum TL, Potchen EJ (1992) Readability of the radiologic report. Investig Radiol 27:236–239
Soekhoe JK, Groenen MJ, van Ginneken AM et al (2007) Computerized endoscopic reporting is no more time-consuming than reporting with conventional methods. Eur J Intern Med 18:321–325
Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Cummings JE et al (2009) ACCF/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/NASCI/RSNA/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 Health policy statement on structured reporting in cardiovascular imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 53:76–90
Langlotz CP (2009) Structured radiology reporting: are we there yet? Radiology 253:23–25
Sobel JL, Pearson ML, Gross K et al (1996) Information content and clarity of radiologists' reports for chest radiography. Acad Radiol 3:709–717
Khorasani R, Bates DW, Teeger S, Rothschild JM, Adams DF, Seltzer SE (2003) Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports? Acad Radiol 10:685–688
(RSNA) RSoNA RadLex. http://www.rsna.org/RadLex.aspx. Accessed Aug 2016
Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR (2001) Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:591–598
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 259:184–195
Bosmans JM, Peremans L, Menni M, De Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM (2012) Structured reporting: if, why, when, how-and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights Imaging 3:295–302
Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2009) Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 253:74–80
Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472
Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260:174–181
Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF (2013) Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting. Radiology 267:240–250
Bosmans JM, Neri E, Ratib O, Kahn CE Jr (2015) Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel. Insights Imaging 6:129–132
Browning T (2014) The process of structured reporting: adding value and quality. In: Chhabra A, Soldatos T (eds) Musculoskeletal MRI structured evaluation: how to practically fill the reporting checklist. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia
Ellman H (1990) Diagnosis and treatment of incomplete rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res 64–74
Zanetti M, Gerber C, Hodler J (1998) Quantitative assessment of the muscles of the rotator cuff with magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol 33:163–170
Thomazeau H, Rolland Y, Lucas C, Duval JM, Langlais F (1996) Atrophy of the supraspinatus belly. Assessment by MRI in 55 patients with rotator cuff pathology. Acta Orthop Scand 67:264–268
Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC (1994) Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures. Pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res 78–83
Bateman J (1972) The shoulder and neck. In: Saunders W (ed) The shoulder and neck. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 213–235
Davidson J, Burkhart SS (2010) The geometric classification of rotator cuff tears: a system linking tear pattern to treatment and prognosis. Arthroscopy 26:417–424
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH (2009) Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 64:386–394; 395–386
Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH (2010) Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective. Br J Radiol 83:17–22
Weiss DL, Langlotz CP (2008) Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 249:739–747
Marcovici PA, Taylor GA (2014) Journal club: structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1265–1271
Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES et al (2009) Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 252:852–856
Sistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J (2005) Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:804–812
Hawkins CM, Hall S, Hardin J, Salisbury S, Towbin AJ (2012) Prepopulated radiology report templates: a prospective analysis of error rate and turnaround time. J Digit Imaging 25:504–511
Hawkins CM, Hall S, Zhang B, Towbin AJ (2014) Creation and implementation of department-wide structured reports: an analysis of the impact on error rate in radiology reports. J Digit Imaging 27:581–587
Hassanpour S, Langlotz CP (2015) Unsupervised topic modeling in a large free text radiology report repository. J Digit Imaging. doi:10.1007/s10278-015-9823-3
Powell DK, Silberzweig JE (2015) State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey. Acad Radiol 22:226–233
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 27:588–593
Johnson AJ (2012) All structured reporting systems are not created equal. Radiology 262:726, author reply 726-727
(RSNA) RSoNA RadReport. http://www.radreport.org. Accessed Aug 2016
D’Orsi CJSE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston
American College of Radiology. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2014. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LIRADS. Accessed Aug 2016
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Professor Wieland H. Sommer.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: QMedify GmbH. Wieland H. Sommer and Marco Armbruster are co-founders of the website www.smart-radiology.com (by Smart Reporting GmbH), an online platform for structured reporting.
Funding
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.
Ethical approval
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
Methodology
• retrospective
• diagnostic study
• performed at one institution
Additional information
Sebastian Gassenmaier and Marco Armbruster contributed equally to this work.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
Example of a structured report. The figure shows an example of a structured report used in our study. The report was translated from German and had to be edited due to language reasons and with regard to content for the protection of the patient’s anonymity. (DOC 31 kb)
ESM 2
Corresponding narrative free text report to ESM 1. The figure shows the corresponding non-structured narrative free text report used in our study. The report was translated from German and had to be edited due to language reasons and with regard to content for the protection of the patient’s anonymity. (DOC 24 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gassenmaier, S., Armbruster, M., Haasters, F. et al. Structured reporting of MRI of the shoulder – improvement of report quality?. Eur Radiol 27, 4110–4119 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4778-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4778-z