Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 11/2019

01-11-2019 | Radiological Education

Creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages through multilingual structured reporting

Authors: L. M. Sobez, S. H. Kim, M. Angstwurm, S. Störmann, D. Pförringer, F. Schmidutz, D. Prezzi, C. Kelly-Morland, W. H. Sommer, B. Sabel, D. Nörenberg, M. Berndt, F. Galiè

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Globalization and migration are increasing the demand for reports in different languages. We aimed to examine if structured reports created by non-German-speaking radiologists with multilingual templates show significant differences in quality to structured reports and free-text reports by German native speakers.

Methods

We used structured templates that allow radiologists to report in their mother tongue and then switch the report language to German or English automatically using proprietary software. German- and English-speaking radiology residents created structured reports in both German and English with these templates. Reports for three different exam types were created (intensive care chest x-ray, shoulder x-ray specifically for degenerative processes, and CT pulmonary angiogram for pulmonary embolism). The report quality of automatically translated German structured reports by English-speaking radiologists and German structured reports by German radiologists was then evaluated by German clinicians with a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to assess attributes including content, comprehensibility, clinical consequences, and overall quality.

Results

Structured reports by English-speaking radiologists that were automatically translated into German and German structured reports by German radiologists both received very high or high overall quality ratings in the majority of cases, showing no significant differences in quality. Likewise, no significant differences were observed between the two report types regarding comprehensibility and clinical consequences. Structured reports by German radiologists received significantly better ratings for overall quality and comprehensibility compared to free-text reports by German radiologists.

Conclusions

Multilingual structured reporting templates may serve as a feasible tool for creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages.

Key Points

• Multilingualism in structured reporting templates can be a useful tool for creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages.
• German reports created with multilingual structured reporting templates by English-speaking radiologists and German structured reports by German radiologists exhibit no significant differences in overall report quality.
• Multilingual structured reporting templates can help radiologists overcome communication barriers and facilitate teleradiology.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Slowther A, Lewando Hundt GA, Purkis J, Taylor R (2012) Experiences of non-UK-qualified doctors working within the UK regulatory framework: a qualitative study. J R Soc Med 105:157–165CrossRef
4.
Kalra G, Bhugra DK, Shah N (2012) Identifying and addressing stresses in international medical graduates. Acad Psychiatry 36:323–329CrossRef
5.
Hall P, Kelly E, Dojeiji S, Byszewski A, Marks M (2004) Communication skills, cultural challenges and individual support: challenges of international medical graduates in a Canadian healthcare environment. Med Teach 26:120–125CrossRef
6.
Skjeggestad E, Norvoll R, Sandal GM, Gulbrandsen P (2017) How do international medical graduates and colleagues perceive and deal with difficulties in everyday collaboration? A qualitative study. Scand J Public Health 45:428–435CrossRef
7.
Klingler C, Marckmann G (2016) Difficulties experienced by migrant physicians working in German hospitals: a qualitative interview study. Hum Resour Health 14:57CrossRef
8.
Rabol LI, Andersen ML, Ostergaard D, Bjørn B, Lilja B, Mogensen T (2011) Republished error management: descriptions of verbal communication errors between staff. An analysis of 84 root cause analysis-reports from Danish hospitals. Postgrad Med J 87:783–789
9.
Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system (Vol. 6). Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
10.
European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2011) Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 2:93–96
11.
Bosmans JM, Neri E, Ratib O, Kahn CE Jr (2015) Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel. Insights Imaging 6:129–132CrossRef
12.
European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2018) ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging 9:1–7
13.
Sabel BO, Plum JL, Czihal M et al (2018) Structured reporting of CT angiography runoff examinations of the lower extremities. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 55:679–687CrossRef
14.
Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Haack M et al (2018) Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports. Eur Radiol 28:308–315CrossRef
15.
Buckley BW, Daly L, Allen GN, Ridge CA (2018) Recall of structured radiology reports is significantly superior to that of unstructured reports. Br J Radiol 91:20170670CrossRef
16.
Sabel BO, Plum JL, Kneidinger N et al (2017) Structured reporting of CT examinations in acute pulmonary embolism. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 11:188–195CrossRef
17.
18.
19.
Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472CrossRef
20.
Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:584–588CrossRef
21.
Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260:174–181CrossRef
22.
Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Bashir MR et al (2017) Structured reporting of CT enterography for inflammatory bowel disease: effect on key feature reporting, accuracy across training levels, and subjective assessment of disease by referring physicians. Abdom Radiol (NY). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00261-017-1136-1
23.
Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Norenberg D et al (2018) Structured reporting adds clinical value in primary CT staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol 28:3702–3709CrossRef
24.
Stramare R, Scattolin G, Beltrame V et al (2012) Structured reporting using a shared indexed multilingual radiology lexicon. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 7:621–633CrossRef
25.
Ross P, Sepper R, Pohjonen H (2010) Cross-border teleradiology-experience from two international teleradiology projects. Eur J Radiol 73:20–25CrossRef
26.
27.
28.
29.
Schoppe F, Sommer WH, Schmidutz F et al (2018) Structured reporting of x-rays for atraumatic shoulder pain: advantages over free text? BMC Med Imaging 18:20CrossRef
30.
31.
Yang C, Kasales CJ, Ouyang T et al (2014) A succinct rating scale for radiology report quality. SAGE Open Med 2:2050312114563101CrossRef
32.
Wallis A, Edey A, Prothero D, McCoubrie P (2013) The Bristol Radiology Report Assessment Tool (BRRAT): developing a workplace-based assessment tool for radiology reporting skills. Clin Radiol 68:1146–1154CrossRef
33.
Wallis A, McCoubrie P (2011) The radiology report--are we getting the message across? Clin Radiol 66:1015–1022CrossRef
34.
Blackmore CC (2007) Defining quality in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 4:217–223CrossRef
35.
Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH (2010) Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol 83:17–22CrossRef
36.
Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES et al (2009) Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 252:852–856
37.
Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR (2001) Radiology reports : examining radiologist and clinical preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:591–598
38.
Johnson AJ, Ying J, Swan JS, Williams LS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2004) Improving the quality of radiology reporting: a physician survey to define the target. J Am Coll Radiol 1:497–505CrossRef
39.
Collard MD, Tellier J, Chowdhury AS, Lowe LH (2014) Improvement in reporting skills of radiology residents with a structured reporting curriculum. Acad Radiol 21:126–133
40.
Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, Parizel PM (2009) Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers. Eur J Radiol 72:354–358
41.
Heikkinen K, Löyttyniemi M, Kormano M (2000) Structure and content of 400 CT reports in four teaching hospitals using a new, Windows-based software tool. Acta Radiol 41:102–105
42.
Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM (2011) The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259:184–195
43.
Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan SJ, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2009) Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 253:74–80
44.
Faggioni L, Coppola F, Ferrari R, Neri E, Regge D (2017) Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey. Eur Radiol 27:1934–1943CrossRef
45.
Powell DK, Silberzweig JE (2015) State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey. Acad Radiol 22:226–233CrossRef
46.
Samartine S, White L, McKeon D, Becker M (2015) Enhancing structured reporting: improving quality by tailoring the report to the clinical scenario. J Am Coll Radiol 12:845–847CrossRef
47.
Dickerson E, Davenport MS, Syed F et al (2017) Effect of template reporting of brain MRIs for multiple sclerosis on report thoroughness and neurologist-rated quality: results of a prospective quality improvement project. J Am Coll Radiol 14:371–379 e371CrossRef
48.
Tarulli E, Thipphavong S, Jhaveri K (2015) A structured approach to reporting rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 40:3002–3011CrossRef
49.
Flusberg M, Ganeles J, Ekinci T et al (2017) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of CT and MRI reports for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1206–1211CrossRef
50.
Srinivasa Babu A, Brooks ML (2015) The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. Radiographics 35:547–554
51.
Ganeshan D, Duong PT, Probyn L et al (2018) Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol 25:66–73CrossRef
52.
Turner AM, Bergman M, Brownstein M, Cole K, Kirchhoff K (2014) A comparison of human and machine translation of health promotion materials for public health practice: time, costs, and quality. J Public Health Manag Pract 20:523–529CrossRef
53.
Randhawa G, Ferreyra M, Ahmed R, Ezzat O, Pottie K (2013) Using machine translation in clinical practice. Can Fam Physician 59:382–383PubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Dew KN, Turner AM, Choi YK, Bosold A, Kirchhoff K (2018) Development of machine translation technology for assisting health communication: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform 85:56–67CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages through multilingual structured reporting
Authors
L. M. Sobez
S. H. Kim
M. Angstwurm
S. Störmann
D. Pförringer
F. Schmidutz
D. Prezzi
C. Kelly-Morland
W. H. Sommer
B. Sabel
D. Nörenberg
M. Berndt
F. Galiè
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06206-8

Other articles of this Issue 11/2019

European Radiology 11/2019 Go to the issue

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Lipiodol deposition in portal vein tumour thrombus predicts treatment outcome in HCC patients after transarterial chemoembolisation

Breast

Evaluation of single-view contrast-enhanced mammography as novel reading strategy: a non-inferiority feasibility study

Neuro

Automated versus manual imaging assessment of early ischemic changes in acute stroke: comparison of two software packages and expert consensus

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

MRI for characterization of benign hepatocellular tumors on hepatobiliary phase: the added value of in-phase imaging and lesion-to-liver visual signal intensity ratio

Cardiac

Relevance of anatomical, plaque, and hemodynamic characteristics of non-obstructive coronary lesions in the prediction of risk for acute coronary syndrome

Vascular-Interventional

Tumor location does not impact oncologic outcomes for percutaneous microwave ablation of clinical T1a renal cell carcinoma