Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Customization of Medical Report Data

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Structured reporting offers a number of theoretical advantages, perhaps the most important of which is creation of standardized report databases. The standardized data created can in turn be used to customize data display, report content, historical data retrieval, interpretation analysis, and results communication in both a context and user-specific manner. In addition, these referenceable report databases can be used to facilitate the practice of evidence based medicine, through data-driven meta-analysis and determination of best practice guidelines. This concept will only be realized if the customized data delivery technology provides real and tangible value to end users, accentuates workflow, can be seamlessly integrated into existing information system technologies, and be shown to yield reproducibility of the evidence domain. The time is here for the medical imaging and clinical communities to embrace this vision in order to improve clinical outcomes and patient safety.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reiner B: One size doesn’t fit tall. J Am Coll Radiol 4:567–570, 2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Reiner BI: The challenges, opportunities, and imperative of structured reporting in medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 22:562–568, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hall FM: Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. AJR 175:1239–1242, 2000

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL: Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 5:313–319, 2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Reiner B, Siegel E: Radiology reporting: returning to our image-centric roots. AJR 187:1151–1155, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Noumeir R: radiology interpretation process modeling. J Biomed Inform 39:103–114, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Langlotz CP: Automating structuring of radiology reports: harbinger of a second information revolution in radiology. Radiology 224:5–7, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. American College of Radiology: ACR practice guidelines for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. In: Practice Guidelines and Technical Standards 2007. American College of Radiology, Reston, 2007, pp 3–8

    Google Scholar 

  9. American College of Radiology: ACR practice guideline for radiologist coverage of imaging performed in hospital emergency departments. In: Practice Guidelines and Technical Standards 2007. American College of Radiology, Reston, 2007, pp 13–15

    Google Scholar 

  10. Reiner B, Siegel E: Decommoditizing radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 3:167–170, 2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Naik SS, Hanbridge A, Wilson SR: Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR 176:591–598, 2001

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Clinger NJ, Hunter TB, Hillman BJ: Radiology reporting: attitudes of referring physicians. Radiology 169:825–826, 1988

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH: Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol 985:17–22, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hall FM: The radiology report of the future. Radiology 251:313–316, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Berlin L: Standards for radiology interpretation and reporting in the emergency setting. Pediatr Radiol 38:639–644, 2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell MK, Devellis BM, Strecher VJ, et al: Improving dietary behavior: the effectiveness of tailored messages in primary care settings. Am J Public Health 5:783–787, 1994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McRoy SW, Liu-Perez A, Ali SS: Interactive computerized health education. JAMIA 5:347–356, 1998

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Skinner CS, Strecher VJ, Hospers H: Physicians’ recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference? Am J Public Health 1:43–49, 1994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Busaidi A, Gray A, Fiddian N: Personalizing web information for patients: linking medical data with the web via a patient personal knowledge base. Health Inform J 1:27–39, 2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Buchanan BG, Moore JD, Forsythe DE, et al: An intelligent interactive system for delivering individualized information to patients. Artif Intell Med 2:117–154, 1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Channin DS, Mongkolwat P, Kleper V, et al: The annotation and image mark-ip project. Radiology 253:590–592, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. http://www.fda.gov/CDRH/MAMMOGRAPHY

  23. Berlin L: Communicating results of all radiologic examinations directly to patients: has the time come? AJR 189:1275–1282, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Reiner B: Uncovering and improving upon the inherent deficiencies of radiology reporting through data mining. J Digit Imaging 2:109–118, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kong A, Barnett G, Mosteller F, et al: How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med 315:740–744, 1986

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Siddiqui K: Evolution of the digital revolution: a radiologist perspective. J Digit Imaging 16:324–330, 2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH, Schepps B: Too few radiologists? AJR 178:1075–1082, 2002

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sackett DL, Rosenberg W, Gray JA, et al: Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 7023:71–72, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S, et al: Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 6:523–530, 2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL, et al: Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 8:299–308, 2001

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Middleton B, Renner K, Leavitt M: Ambulatory practice clinical information management: problems and prospects. Healthc Inf Manag 4:97–112, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  32. Garg AX, Adhikar NKJ, McDonald H, et al: Effects of computerized decision support systems on practice performance and patient outcomes. JAMA 293:1223–1238, 2005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, et al: Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify feature critical to success. BMJ 330:765, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, et al: Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 280:1339–1346, 1998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lottridge DM, Chignell M, Dancic-Mizdrak R, et al: Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 7:22, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kushner DC, Lucey LL: Diagnostic radiology reporting and communication: the ACR guidelines. J Am Coll Radiol 2:15–21, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was funded in part by an educational grant provided by Fuji Medical Systems USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System, 10 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA

    Bruce I. Reiner

Authors
  1. Bruce I. Reiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce I. Reiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reiner, B.I. Customization of Medical Report Data. J Digit Imaging 23, 363–373 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-010-9307-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-010-9307-4

Key words

Search

Navigation