Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 1/2012

01-02-2012

Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension

Authors: Elizabeth A. Krupinski, E. Tyler Hall, Stacy Jaw, Bruce Reiner, Eliot Siegel

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

This study examined whether radiology report format influences reading time and comprehension of information. Three reports were reformatted to conventional free text, structured text organized by organ system, and hierarchical structured text organized by clinical significance. Five attending radiologists, five radiology residents, five internal medicine attendings, and five internal medicine residents read the reports and answered a series of questions about them. Reading was timed and participants reported reading preferences. For reading time, there was no significant effect for format, but there was for attending versus resident, and radiology versus internal medicine. For percent correct scores, there was no significant effect for report format or for attending versus resident, but there was for radiology versus internal medicine with the radiologists scoring better overall. Report format does not appear to impact viewing time or percent correct answers, but there are differences in both for specialty and level of experience. There were also differences between the four groups of participants with respect to what they focus on in a radiology report and how they read reports (skim versus read in detail). There may not be a “one-size-fits-all” radiology report format as individual preferences differ widely.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Boland GWL, Guimaraes AS, Mueller PR, 2008. Radiology report turnaround: expectations and solutions. Eur Radiol 18, 1326–1328PubMedCrossRef Boland GWL, Guimaraes AS, Mueller PR, 2008. Radiology report turnaround: expectations and solutions. Eur Radiol 18, 1326–1328PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Berlin L, 2008. Standards for radiology interpretation and reporting in the emergency setting. Pediatr Radiol 38, S639–S644PubMedCrossRef Berlin L, 2008. Standards for radiology interpretation and reporting in the emergency setting. Pediatr Radiol 38, S639–S644PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kushner DC, Lucey LL, 2005. Diagnostic radiology reporting and communication: the ACR Guideline. J Am Coll Radiol 2, 15–21PubMedCrossRef Kushner DC, Lucey LL, 2005. Diagnostic radiology reporting and communication: the ACR Guideline. J Am Coll Radiol 2, 15–21PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP, 2008. The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 5, 626–629PubMedCrossRef Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP, 2008. The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 5, 626–629PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kroken P. (2008). The radiology report: a new look at an old standard. Radiol Manag March/April:39–41. Kroken P. (2008). The radiology report: a new look at an old standard. Radiol Manag March/April:39–41.
6.
go back to reference Cohen MD, 2008. The radiology report of the future: the ignored impression. J Am Coll Radiol 5, 1017–1018PubMedCrossRef Cohen MD, 2008. The radiology report of the future: the ignored impression. J Am Coll Radiol 5, 1017–1018PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Noumeir R, 2006. Benefits of the DICOM structured report. J Dig Imag 19, 295–306CrossRef Noumeir R, 2006. Benefits of the DICOM structured report. J Dig Imag 19, 295–306CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Fujii H, Yamagishi H, Ando Y, et al. (2007). Structuring of free-text diagnostic report. In MEDINFO, Kuhn K, et al. (eds). IOS Press. Fujii H, Yamagishi H, Ando Y, et al. (2007). Structuring of free-text diagnostic report. In MEDINFO, Kuhn K, et al. (eds). IOS Press.
9.
go back to reference Stillman AE, Rubin GD, Teague SD, et al. 2008. Structured reporting: coronary CT angiography: a white paper from the American College of Radiology and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 5, 796–800PubMedCrossRef Stillman AE, Rubin GD, Teague SD, et al. 2008. Structured reporting: coronary CT angiography: a white paper from the American College of Radiology and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 5, 796–800PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Marwede D, Fielding M, Kahn T. (2007). RadiO: a prototype application ontology for radiology reporting tasks. AMIA 2007 Symposium Proceedings: 513–517. Marwede D, Fielding M, Kahn T. (2007). RadiO: a prototype application ontology for radiology reporting tasks. AMIA 2007 Symposium Proceedings: 513–517.
11.
12.
go back to reference Robert L, Cohn MD, Jennings GS, 2006. A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports. Acad Radiol 13, 241–248CrossRef Robert L, Cohn MD, Jennings GS, 2006. A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports. Acad Radiol 13, 241–248CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lee R, Cohen MD, Jennings GS, 2006. A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports. Acad Radiol 13, 241–248PubMedCrossRef Lee R, Cohen MD, Jennings GS, 2006. A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports. Acad Radiol 13, 241–248PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Frommelt P, Gorentz J, Deatsman S, et al. 2008. Digital imaging, archiving, and structured reporting in pediatric echocardiography: impact on laboratory efficiency and physician communication. J Am Soc Echocard 21, 935–940CrossRef Frommelt P, Gorentz J, Deatsman S, et al. 2008. Digital imaging, archiving, and structured reporting in pediatric echocardiography: impact on laboratory efficiency and physician communication. J Am Soc Echocard 21, 935–940CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Plumb AAO, Grieve FM, Khan SH, 2009. Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 64, 386–394PubMedCrossRef Plumb AAO, Grieve FM, Khan SH, 2009. Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 64, 386–394PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH, 2010. Radiology reporting: a general practioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol 83, 17–22PubMedCrossRef Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH, 2010. Radiology reporting: a general practioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol 83, 17–22PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dogan N, Varlibas ZN, Erpolat OP, 2010. Radiological report: expectations of clinicians. Diagn Interv Radiol 16, 179–185PubMed Dogan N, Varlibas ZN, Erpolat OP, 2010. Radiological report: expectations of clinicians. Diagn Interv Radiol 16, 179–185PubMed
18.
go back to reference McLoughlin RF, So CB, Gray RR, Brandt R, 1995. Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? Am J Roentgen 165, 803–806 McLoughlin RF, So CB, Gray RR, Brandt R, 1995. Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? Am J Roentgen 165, 803–806
19.
go back to reference Johnson AJ, Chen MY, zapadka ME, Lyders EM, Littenberg B, 2010. Radiology report clarity: a cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. J Am Coll Radiol 7, 501–506PubMedCrossRef Johnson AJ, Chen MY, zapadka ME, Lyders EM, Littenberg B, 2010. Radiology report clarity: a cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. J Am Coll Radiol 7, 501–506PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Sistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J, 2005. Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. Am J Roentgen 185, 804–812 Sistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J, 2005. Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. Am J Roentgen 185, 804–812
22.
go back to reference Naik SS, Hanbridge A, Wilson SR, 2001. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and context. Am J Roentgen 176, 591–598 Naik SS, Hanbridge A, Wilson SR, 2001. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and context. Am J Roentgen 176, 591–598
23.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL, 2007. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 4, 313–319PubMedCrossRef Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL, 2007. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 4, 313–319PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Weiss DL, Langlotz CP, 2008. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare?. Radiol 249, 739–747CrossRef Weiss DL, Langlotz CP, 2008. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare?. Radiol 249, 739–747CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Influence of Radiology Report Format on Reading Time and Comprehension
Authors
Elizabeth A. Krupinski
E. Tyler Hall
Stacy Jaw
Bruce Reiner
Eliot Siegel
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-011-9424-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Journal of Digital Imaging 1/2012 Go to the issue

BriefCommunication

The Next Wave: Confexting