Aims and objectives
The written radiology report is still the primary radiologic output and is necessary for documentation of the official interpretation.
For decades,
the narrative style of radiologic reporting has been the standard and largely taught to residents through one- on- one- teaching with faculty. However,
the report,
as our primary product,
merits consideration as to its content and structure and,
in this era of “value-added”,
should be adapted to the clinicians’ needs and wishes 1 .
Studies have...
Methods and materials
A literature search was carried out in Pubmed 8 the 16 th April 2018 with the terms “anatomy”,
“interventionalist”,
“surgeon”,
“need”,
“quantification”,
“report”,
“standard”,
“stenosis”,
“measurement”,
“computer tomography”,
“CT angiography”,
“head”,
“neck”.
Studies between 1995 and 2018 in English language were identified.
Articles not referring to humans were excluded.
The studies were hand- selected; the literature of the selected articles was further searched for relevant publications.
We...
Results
22 experts completed the questionnaire: 17 neurologists,
1 angiologist,
2 radiologists and 2 vascular surgeons.
The experts were 7 residents (0-6 years of experience),
2 attending physicians in non- leading positions and 13 attending physicians in leading positions.
See Fig.
1.
10% of the experts stated they were receiving thematically sectioned reports in their clinic for more than one year.
10.5% of the experts read their patient’s radiologic reports on a regular basis.
86% declared their...
Conclusion
Although the majority of physicians in our survey feel that their existing report is complete,
a majority also asked for a structured report. We found some agreement regarding the content of the report,
in particular the request for scores and standardized measures such as ASPECT and NASCET.
Incontrast to the agreement there were notable personal preferences not only in regards to particular content or level of detail in the report but also the fact that these preferences change with the...
References
1.
Grieve FM,
Plumb AA,
Khan SH.
Radiology reporting: A general practitioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol .
2010.
doi:10.1259/bjr/16360063 2.
Naik SS,
Hanbidge A,
Wilson SR.
Radiology Reports. Am J Roentgenol .
2001;176(3):591-598.
doi:10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760591 3.
Plumb AAO,
Grieve FM,
Khan SH.
Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol .
2009;64(4):386-394.
doi:10.1016/J.CRAD.2008.11.009 4.
RSNA informatics Reporting....
