RADIOLOGY REPORT: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
https://doi.org/10.20862/0042-4676-2014-0-3-35-40
Abstract
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.
About the Authors
V. E. Sinitsyn
Federal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation, Ministry of Health of the RF,
Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of the RF
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
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
M. A. Komarova
Federal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation, Ministry of Health of the RF
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Radiologist of Center of Radiology of Federal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation
Ivan’kovskoe shosse, 3, Moscow, 125367
E. A. Mershina
Federal Center of Treatment and Rehabilitation, Ministry of Health of the RF,
Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Ministry of Health of the RF
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
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
References
1. Röntgen W.K. Eine neue Art von Strahlen. Würzburg, Germany: Medicophysical Institute of the University of Würzburg; 1896.
2. 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.
3. Gagliardi R.A. The evolution of the X-ray report. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1995; 164 (2): 501–2.
4. Hickey P. Standardisation of roentgen-ray reports. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1922; 9: 422.
5. Hickey P. The interpretation of radiographs. J. Mich. Med. Soc. 1904; 3: 496.
6. Wallis A., McCoubrie P. The radiology report: are we getting the message across? Clin. Radiol. 2011; 66 (11): 1015–22.
7. Enfield C. The scope of the roentgenologist’s report. JAMA. 1923; 80: 999.
8. Kahn C.E., Langlotz C.P., Burnside E.S. et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology. 2009; 252 (3): 852–6.
9. Clinger N.J., Hunter T.B., Hillman B.J. Radiology reporting: аttitudes of referring physician. Radiology. 1988; 169 (3): 825–6.
10. Grieve F.M., Plumb A.A., Khan S.H. Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br. J. Radiol. 2010; 83 (985): 17–22.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Sierra A.E., Bisesi M.A., Rosenbaum T.L. et al. Readability of the radiologic report. Invest. Radiol. 1992; 27 (3): 236–9.
18. Hall F.M. Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. AJR. 2000; 175: 1239–42.
19. Friedman P.J. Radiologic reporting: the hierarchy of terms. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1983; 140 (2): 402–3.
20. Friedman P.J. Radiologic reporting: structure. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1983; 140 (1): 171–2.
21. Hall F.M. Clinical history, radiographic reporting, and defensive radiologic practice. Radiology. 1989; 170 (2): 575–6.
22. McLoughlin R.F., So C.B., Gray R.R. et al. Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? AJR. 1995; 165: 803–6.
23. Coakley F.V., Liberman L., Panicek D.M. Style guidelines for radiology reporting: a manner of speaking. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003; 180 (2): 327–8.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. ACR practice guidelines for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Reston, Virginia: American College of Radiology; 2010.
27. Armas R.R. Qualities of a good radiology report. AJR. 1998; 170: 1110.
28. Weiss D.L., Langlotz C.P. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology. 2008; 249 (3): 739–47.
29. 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.
30. Berlin L. Reporting the “missed” radiologic diagnosis: medicolegal and ethical considerations. Radiology. 1994; 192 (1): 183–7.
31. 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.
32. Siegel E.L. Goodbye, Mr. Cox: time for automated closure of the radiology communication loop. Appl. Radiol. 2005; 34: 312.
33. Lucey L.L., Kushner D.C., American 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.
34. 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 classification 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.
35. Sasaki T. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment “RECIST.” Gan. To Kagaku Ryoho. 2000; 27 (14): 2179–84.
36. Flanders A.E. RSNA Radiology Reporting Templates: MR brain. Available at: http://www.radreport.org/ template/ 0000045.
37. Flanders A.E., Lakhani P. Radiology reporting and communications: a look forward. Neuroimaging Clin. N. Am. 2012; 22 (3): 477–96.
38. Smither J. Average malpractice payment increases. Mod. Healthcare. 1993; 15:14.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Physician Insurers Association of America and American College of Radiology. Practice standards claims survey. Rockville, Md: Physician Insurers Association of America; 1997, 395–6.
42. Kushner D.C., Lucey L.L. Diagnostic radiology report and communication: the ACR guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2005; 1: 15–21.
43. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 2000: 1–3.
44. 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.
45. Hayt D.B., Alexander S. The pros and cons of implementing PACS and speech recognition systems. J. Digit. Imaging. 2001; 14: 149–57.
46. Gale B., Safriel Y., Lukban A. et al. Radiology report production times: voice recognition versus transcription. Radiol. Manage. 2001; 23: 23–5.
47. Hall F.M. The radiology report o f the future. Radiology. 2009; 251 (2): 313–6.
Review
For citations:
Sinitsyn V.E., Komarova M.A., Mershina E.A. RADIOLOGY REPORT: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine. 2014;(3):35-40. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20862/0042-4676-2014-0-3-35-40
Views:
1722
Email this article 