rentradВестник рентгенологии и радиологииJournal of radiology and nuclear medicine0042-46762619-0478Limited Liability Company "LUCHEVAYA DIAGNOSTIKA", Russian Association of Radiologists10.20862/0042-4676-2014-0-3-35-40rentrad-31Research ArticleВ ПОМОЩЬ ПРАКТИКУЮЩЕМУ ВРАЧУGUIDELINES FOR THE PRACTITIONERПРОТОКОЛ РЕНТГЕНОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО ОПИСАНИЯ: ПРОШЛОЕ, НАСТОЯЩЕЕ, БУДУЩЕЕRADIOLOGY REPORT: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTUREСиницынВ. Е.SinitsynV. E.

д. м. н., профессор, директор Центра лучевой диагностики ЛРЦ

Иваньковское шоссе, 3, Москва, 125367

ул. Баррикадная, 2/1, Москва, 123995

MD, PhD, DSc, Professor, Director of Center of Radiology of Federal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation

Ivan’kovskoe shosse, 3, Moscow, 125367

ul. Barrikadnaya, 2/1, Moscow, 123995

КомароваМ. А.KomarovaM. A.

врач-рентгенолог Центра лучевой диагностики ЛРЦ

Иваньковское шоссе, 3, Москва, 125367

Radiologist of Center of Radiology of Federal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation

Ivan’kovskoe shosse, 3, Moscow, 125367

МершинаЕ. А.MershinaE. A.

к. м. н., доцент, заведующая отделением томографии Центра лучевой диагностики ЛРЦ

Иваньковское шоссе, 3, Москва, 125367

ул. Баррикадная, 2/1, Москва, 123995

MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Tomography of Center of Radiology of Federal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation 

Ivan’kovskoe shosse, 3, Moscow, 125367

ul. Barrikadnaya, 2/1, Moscow, 123995

elena_mershina@mail.ruФГБУ «Лечебно-реабилитационный центр» Министерства здравоохранения РФ, ГБОУ ДПО «Российская медицинская академия последипломного образования» Министерства здравоохранения РФРоссияFederal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation, Ministry of Health of the RF, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of the RFRussian FederationФГБУ «Лечебно-реабилитационный центр» Министерства здравоохранения РФРоссияFederal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation, Ministry of Health of the RFRussian Federation201427022016033540Copyright © Синицын В.Е., Комарова М.А., Мершина Е.А., 20162016Синицын В.Е., Комарова М.А., Мершина Е.А.Sinitsyn V.E., Komarova M.A., Mershina E.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.russianradiology.ru/jour/article/view/31

Анализ литературных данных показал, что создание и внедрение в клиническую практику новой формы протоколов рентгенологического описания является актуальной проблемой современной медицины. И хотя в прошлом столетии методики медицинской визуализации быстро и динамично развивались, протокол рентгенологического описания, как по структуре, так и по содержанию, практически не изменился. В последние годы в зарубежной литературе также активно обсуждается необходимость создания особой новой формы – структурированных протоколов. Большое разнообразие стилей протоколов описания, существующих на данный момент в лучевой диагностике, является доказательством того, что основной, универсальный формат описания так и не найден, а единый стандарт описания исследований отсутствует. Все это позволяет сформировать основные цели и задачи, которые необходимо преодолеть для усовершенствования и создания новой формы протоколов рентгенологического описания – протоколов будущего. 

The analysis of literature data showed that the creation and implementation of a new form of radiology reports into clinical practice is an actual problem of modern medicine. Although imaging modalities have undergone dramatic evolution over the past century, radiology reporting has remained largely static, in both content and structure. In recent years the necessity to create a structured reporting is widely discussed in the literature. A universal format of radiology report hasn’t been found yet. The standard of reporting system is absent, a wide variety of styles in radiology reporting currently exists. The challenging goal is improvement of existing protocols and creation of a new form of radiology reports – the protocols of the future.

рентгенологиярентгенологический протоколструктурированные протоколыстандартизованная терминологияradiologyradiology reportstructured reportsstandardized lexiconReferencesRöntgen W.K. Eine neue Art von Strahlen. Würzburg, Germany: Medicophysical Institute of the University of Würzburg; 1896.Röntgen W.K. Eine neue Art von Strahlen. Würzburg, Germany: Medicophysical Institute of the University of Würzburg; 1896.Reiner B.I., Knight N., Siegel E.L. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2007; 4 (5): 313–9.Reiner B.I., Knight N., Siegel E.L. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2007; 4 (5): 313–9.Gagliardi R.A. The evolution of the X-ray report. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1995; 164 (2): 501–2.Gagliardi R.A. The evolution of the X-ray report. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1995; 164 (2): 501–2.Hickey P. Standardisation of roentgen-ray reports. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1922; 9: 422.Hickey P. Standardisation of roentgen-ray reports. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1922; 9: 422.Hickey P. The interpretation of radiographs. J. Mich. Med. Soc. 1904; 3: 496.Hickey P. The interpretation of radiographs. J. Mich. Med. Soc. 1904; 3: 496.Wallis A., McCoubrie P. The radiology report: are we getting the message across? Clin. Radiol. 2011; 66 (11): 1015–22.Wallis A., McCoubrie P. The radiology report: are we getting the message across? Clin. Radiol. 2011; 66 (11): 1015–22.Enfield C. The scope of the roentgenologist’s report. JAMA. 1923; 80: 999.Enfield C. The scope of the roentgenologist’s report. JAMA. 1923; 80: 999.Kahn C.E., Langlotz C.P., Burnside E.S. et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology. 2009; 252 (3): 852–6.Kahn C.E., Langlotz C.P., Burnside E.S. et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology. 2009; 252 (3): 852–6.Clinger N.J., Hunter T.B., Hillman B.J. Radiology reporting: аttitudes of referring physician. Radiology. 1988; 169 (3): 825–6.Clinger N.J., Hunter T.B., Hillman B.J. Radiology reporting: аttitudes of referring physician. Radiology. 1988; 169 (3): 825–6.Grieve F.M., Plumb A.A., Khan S.H. Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br. J. Radiol. 2010; 83 (985): 17–22.Grieve F.M., Plumb A.A., Khan S.H. Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br. J. Radiol. 2010; 83 (985): 17–22.Naik S.S., Hanbidge A., Wilson S.R. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2001; 176 (3): 591–8.Naik S.S., Hanbidge A., Wilson S.R. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2001; 176 (3): 591–8.Plumb A.A., Grieve F.M., Khan S.H. Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin. Radiol. 2009; 64 (4): 386–94.Plumb A.A., Grieve F.M., Khan S.H. Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin. Radiol. 2009; 64 (4): 386–94.Radiological Society of North America. RadLex: a lexicon for uniform indexing and retrieval of radiology information resources. Available at: http://mirc.rsna.org/radlex/ service. Accessed July 1, 2006.Radiological Society of North America. RadLex: a lexicon for uniform indexing and retrieval of radiology information resources. Available at: http://mirc.rsna.org/radlex/ service. Accessed July 1, 2006.Reiner B., Siegel E., Protopapas Z. et al. Impact of filmless radiology on the frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR. 1999; 173: 1169–72.Reiner B., Siegel E., Protopapas Z. et al. Impact of filmless radiology on the frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR. 1999; 173: 1169–72.Heikkinen K., Löyttyniemi M., Kormano M. Structure and content of 400 CT reports in four teaching hospitals using a new, Windowsbased software tool. Acta Radiol. 2000; 41 (1): 102–5.Heikkinen K., Löyttyniemi M., Kormano M. Structure and content of 400 CT reports in four teaching hospitals using a new, Windowsbased software tool. Acta Radiol. 2000; 41 (1): 102–5.Bosmans J.M., Weyler J.J., Parizel P.M. Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers. Eur. J. Radiol. 2009; 72 (2): 354–8.Bosmans J.M., Weyler J.J., Parizel P.M. Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers. Eur. J. Radiol. 2009; 72 (2): 354–8.Sierra A.E., Bisesi M.A., Rosenbaum T.L. et al. Readability of the radiologic report. Invest. Radiol. 1992; 27 (3): 236–9.Sierra A.E., Bisesi M.A., Rosenbaum T.L. et al. Readability of the radiologic report. Invest. Radiol. 1992; 27 (3): 236–9.Hall F.M. Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. AJR. 2000; 175: 1239–42.Hall F.M. Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. AJR. 2000; 175: 1239–42.Friedman P.J. Radiologic reporting: the hierarchy of terms. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1983; 140 (2): 402–3.Friedman P.J. Radiologic reporting: the hierarchy of terms. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1983; 140 (2): 402–3.Friedman P.J. Radiologic reporting: structure. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1983; 140 (1): 171–2.Friedman P.J. Radiologic reporting: structure. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1983; 140 (1): 171–2.Hall F.M. Clinical history, radiographic reporting, and defensive radiologic practice. Radiology. 1989; 170 (2): 575–6.Hall F.M. Clinical history, radiographic reporting, and defensive radiologic practice. Radiology. 1989; 170 (2): 575–6.McLoughlin R.F., So C.B., Gray R.R. et al. Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? AJR. 1995; 165: 803–6.McLoughlin R.F., So C.B., Gray R.R. et al. Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? AJR. 1995; 165: 803–6.Coakley F.V., Liberman L., Pani￾cek D.M. Style guidelines for radiology reporting: a manner of speaking. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003; 180 (2): 327–8.Coakley F.V., Liberman L., Pani￾cek D.M. Style guidelines for radiology reporting: a manner of speaking. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003; 180 (2): 327–8.Schwartz L.H., Panicek D.M., Berk A.R. et al. Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology. 2011; 260 (1): 174–81.Schwartz L.H., Panicek D.M., Berk A.R. et al. Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology. 2011; 260 (1): 174–81.Sistrom C.L., Honeyman-Buck J. Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005; 185 (3): 804–12.Sistrom C.L., Honeyman-Buck J. Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005; 185 (3): 804–12.ACR practice guidelines for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Reston, Virginia: American College of Radiology; 2010.ACR practice guidelines for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Reston, Virginia: American College of Radiology; 2010.Armas R.R. Qualities of a good radiology report. AJR. 1998; 170: 1110.Armas R.R. Qualities of a good radiology report. AJR. 1998; 170: 1110.Weiss D.L., Langlotz C.P. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology. 2008; 249 (3): 739–47.Weiss D.L., Langlotz C.P. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology. 2008; 249 (3): 739–47.Basma S., Lord B., Jacks L.M. et al. Error rates in breast imaging reports: comparison of automatic speech recognition and dictation transcription. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011; 197 (4): 923–7.Basma S., Lord B., Jacks L.M. et al. Error rates in breast imaging reports: comparison of automatic speech recognition and dictation transcription. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011; 197 (4): 923–7.Berlin L. Reporting the “missed” radiologic diagnosis: medicolegal and ethical considerations. Radiology. 1994; 192 (1): 183–7.Berlin L. Reporting the “missed” radiologic diagnosis: medicolegal and ethical considerations. Radiology. 1994; 192 (1): 183–7.Lehr J.L., Lodwick G.S., Farrell C. et al. Direct measurement of the effect of film miniaturization on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology. 1976; 118: 257–63.Lehr J.L., Lodwick G.S., Farrell C. et al. Direct measurement of the effect of film miniaturization on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology. 1976; 118: 257–63.Siegel E.L. Goodbye, Mr. Cox: time for automated closure of the radiology communication loop. Appl. Radiol. 2005; 34: 312.Siegel E.L. Goodbye, Mr. Cox: time for automated closure of the radiology communication loop. Appl. Radiol. 2005; 34: 312.Lucey L.L., Kushner D.C., Ameri￾can College of Radiology. The ACR guideline on communication: to be or not to be, that is the question. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2010; 7 (2): 109–14.Lucey L.L., Kushner D.C., Ameri￾can College of Radiology. The ACR guideline on communication: to be or not to be, that is the question. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2010; 7 (2): 109–14.Fardon D.F., Milette P.C. Combined Task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Nomenclature and classifi￾cation of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine. 2001; 26 (5): 93–113.Fardon D.F., Milette P.C. Combined Task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Nomenclature and classifi￾cation of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the combined task forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology. Spine. 2001; 26 (5): 93–113.Sasaki T. New guidelines to evalu￾ate the response to treatment “RECIST.” Gan. To Kagaku Ryoho. 2000; 27 (14): 2179–84.Sasaki T. New guidelines to evalu￾ate the response to treatment “RECIST.” Gan. To Kagaku Ryoho. 2000; 27 (14): 2179–84.Flanders A.E. RSNA Radiology Reporting Templates: MR brain. Available at: http://www.radreport.org/ template/ 0000045.Flanders A.E. RSNA Radiology Reporting Templates: MR brain. Available at: http://www.radreport.org/ template/ 0000045.Flanders A.E., Lakhani P. Radiology reporting and communications: a look forward. Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. 2012; 22 (3): 477–96.Flanders A.E., Lakhani P. Radiology reporting and communications: a look forward. Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. 2012; 22 (3): 477–96.Smither J. Average malpractice payment increases. Mod. Healthcare. 1993; 15:14.Smither J. Average malpractice payment increases. Mod. Healthcare. 1993; 15:14.Elmore J.G., Taplin S.H., Barlow W.E. et al. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists’ medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology. 2005; 236: 37–46.Elmore J.G., Taplin S.H., Barlow W.E. et al. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists’ medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology. 2005; 236: 37–46.Farria D.M., Schmidt M.E., Monsees B.S. et al. Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer. 2005; 104: 491–8.Farria D.M., Schmidt M.E., Monsees B.S. et al. Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer. 2005; 104: 491–8.Physician Insurers Association of America and American College of Radiology. Practice standards claims survey. Rockville, Md: Physician Insurers Association of America; 1997, 395–6.Physician Insurers Association of America and American College of Radiology. Practice standards claims survey. Rockville, Md: Physician Insurers Association of America; 1997, 395–6.Kushner D.C., Lucey L.L. Diagnostic radiology report and communication: the ACR guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2005; 1: 15–21.Kushner D.C., Lucey L.L. Diagnostic radiology report and communication: the ACR guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2005; 1: 15–21.American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 2000: 1–3.American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 2000: 1–3.Brantley S.D., Brantley R.D. Reporting significant unexpected findings: the emergence of information technology solutions. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2005; 2 (4): 304–7.Brantley S.D., Brantley R.D. Reporting significant unexpected findings: the emergence of information technology solutions. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2005; 2 (4): 304–7.Hayt D.B., Alexander S. The pros and cons of implementing PACS and speech recognition systems. J. Digit. Imaging. 2001; 14: 149–57.Hayt D.B., Alexander S. The pros and cons of implementing PACS and speech recognition systems. J. Digit. Imaging. 2001; 14: 149–57.Gale B., Safriel Y., Lukban A. et al. Radiology report production times: voice recognition versus transcription. Radiol. Manage. 2001; 23: 23–5.Gale B., Safriel Y., Lukban A. et al. Radiology report production times: voice recognition versus transcription. Radiol. Manage. 2001; 23: 23–5.Hall F.M. The radiology report o f the future. Radiology. 2009; 251 (2): 313–6.Hall F.M. The radiology report o f the future. Radiology. 2009; 251 (2): 313–6.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.