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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Research article

Structured reporting has the potential to reduce reporting times of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams

Authors: Su Hwan Kim, Lara M. Sobez, Judith E. Spiro, Adrian Curta, Felix Ceelen, Eric Kampmann, Martin Goepfert, Raphael Bodensohn, Felix G. Meinel, Wieland H. Sommer, Nora N. Sommer, Franziska Galiè

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In recent years, structured reporting has been shown to be beneficial with regard to report completeness and clinical decision-making as compared to free-text reports (FTR). However, the impact of structured reporting on reporting efficiency has not been thoroughly evaluted yet. The aim of this study was to compare reporting times and report quality of structured reports (SR) to conventional free-text reports of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams (DXA).

Methods

FTRs and SRs of DXA were retrospectively generated by 2 radiology residents and 2 final-year medical students. Time was measured from the first view of the exam until the report was saved. A random sample of DXA reports was selected and sent to 2 referring physicians for further evaluation of report quality.

Results

A total of 104 DXA reports (both FTRs and SRs) were generated and 48 randomly selected reports were evaluated by referring physicians. Reporting times were shorter for SRs in both radiology residents and medical students with median reporting times of 2.7 min (residents: 2.7, medical students: 2.7) for SRs and 6.1 min (residents: 5.0, medical students: 7.5) for FTRs. Information extraction was perceived to be significantly easier from SRs vs FTRs (P <  0.001). SRs were rated to answer the clinical question significantly better than FTRs (P <  0.007). Overall report quality was rated significantly higher for SRs compared to FTRs (P <  0.001) with 96% of SRs vs 79% of FTRs receiving high or very high-quality ratings. All readers except for one resident preferred structured reporting over free-text reporting and both referring clinicians preferred SRs over FTRs for DXA.

Conclusions

Template-based structured reporting of DXA might lead to shorter reporting times and increased report quality.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Radiology ESo. Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging. 2011;2(2):93–6.CrossRef
3.
Morgan TA, Helibrun ME, Kahn CE. Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. Radiology. 2014;273(3):642–5.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP. The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 intersociety conference. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008;5(5):626–9.PubMedCrossRef
5.
KSAR SGfRC. Essential items for structured reporting of rectal Cancer MRI: 2016 consensus recommendation from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(1):132–51.CrossRef
6.
Norenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W, D'Haese J, Rentsch M, Kolben T, Schreyer A, Rist C, Reiser M, Armbruster M. Structured Reporting of RectalMagnetic Resonance Imaging in Suspected Primary Rectal Cancer: Potential Benefits for Surgical Planning and Interdisciplinary Communication. Investigative radiology. 2017;52(4):232–39.
7.
Gassenmaier S, Armbruster M, Haasters F, Helfen T, Henzler T, Alibek S, Pforringer D, Sommer WH, Sommer NN. Structured reporting of MRI of the shoulder - improvement of report quality? Eur Radiol. 2017;27(10):4110–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I. Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology. 2015;274(2):464–72.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R. Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal Cancer staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(3):584–8.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H. Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology. 2011;260(1):174–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Sabel BO, Plum JL, Kneidinger N, Leuschner G, Koletzko L, Raziorrouh B, Schinner R, Kunz WG, Schoeppe F, Thierfelder KM, et al. Structured reporting of CT examinations in acute pulmonary embolism. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2017;11(3):188–95.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Bashir MR, Camp M, Miller C, Fiorillo LE, Cubre A, Javadi S, Bibbey AD, Ehieli WL, et al. 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). 2017;42(9):2243–50.CrossRef
13.
Flusberg M, Ganeles J, Ekinci T, Goldberg-Stein S, Paroder V, Kobi M, Chernyak V. Impact of a structured report template on the quality of CT and MRI reports for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(9):1206–11.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Dickerson E, Davenport MS, Syed F, Stuve O, Cohen JA, Rinker JR, Goldman MD, Segal BM, Foerster BR, Michigan Radiology Quality C. 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. 2017;14(3):371–9 e371.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Haack M, Havel M, Rheinwald M, Wechtenbruch J, Fischer MR, Meinel FG, Sabel BO, Sommer NN. Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(1):308–15.
16.
Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Norenberg D, Verbeek M, Bogner C, Westphalen CB, Dreyling M, Rummeny EJ, Fingerle AA. Structured reporting adds clinical value in primary CT staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(9):3702–9.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Faggioni L, Coppola F, Ferrari R, Neri E, Regge D. Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):1934–43.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Weiss DL, Langlotz CP. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology. 2008;249(3):739–47.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Hangiandreou NJ, Stekel SF, Tradup DJ. Comprehensive clinical implementation of DICOM structured reporting across a radiology ultrasound practice: lessons learned. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(2):298–300.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Reiner BI. Optimizing technology development and adoption in medical imaging using the principles of innovation diffusion, part I: theoretical, historical, and contemporary considerations. J Digit Imaging. 2011;24(5):750–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Ganeshan D, Duong PT, Probyn L, Lenchik L, McArthur TA, Retrouvey M, Ghobadi EH, Desouches SL, Pastel D, Francis IR. Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(1):66–73.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Towbin AJ, Hawkins CM. Use of a web-based calculator and a structured report generator to improve efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of radiology reporting. J Digit Imaging. 2017;30(5):584–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Hanna TN, Shekhani H, Maddu K, Zhang C, Chen Z, Johnson JO. Structured report compliance: effect on audio dictation time, report length, and total radiologist study time. Emerg Radiol. 2016;23(5):449–53.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Segrelles JD, Medina R, Blanquer I, Marti-Bonmati L. Increasing the efficiency on producing radiology reports for breast Cancer diagnosis by means of structured reports. A comparative study. Methods Inf Med. 2017;56(3):248–60.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Li N, Li XM, Xu L, Sun WJ, Cheng XG, Tian W. Comparison of QCT and DXA: osteoporosis detection rates in postmenopausal women. Int J Endocrinol. 2013;2013:895474.PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Khoo BC, Brown K, Cann C, Zhu K, Henzell S, Low V, Gustafsson S, Price RI, Prince RL. Comparison of QCT-derived and DXA-derived areal bone mineral density and T scores. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20(9):1539–45.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Lukaszewicz A, Uricchio J, Gerasymchuk G. The art of the radiology report: practical and stylistic guidelines for perfecting the conveyance of imaging findings. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2016;67(4):318–21.PubMedCrossRef
28.
29.
Punda M, Grazio S. Bone densitometry--the gold standard for diagnosis of osteoporosis. Reumatizam. 2014;61(2):70–4.PubMed
30.
Dimai HP. Use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for diagnosis and fracture risk assessment; WHO-criteria, T- and Z-score, and reference databases. Bone. 2017;104:39–43.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Lewiecki EM, Binkley N, Morgan SL, Shuhart CR, Camargos BM, Carey JJ, Gordon CM, Jankowski LG, Lee JK, Leslie WD, et al. Best practices for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement and reporting: International Society for Clinical Densitometry Guidance. J Clin Densitom. 2016;19(2):127–40.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Krueger D, Shives E, Siglinsky E, Libber J, Buehring B, Hansen KE, Binkley N. DXA Errors Are Common and Reduced by Use of a Reporting Template. Journal of Clinical Densitometry. 2019;22(1):115–24.
33.
34.
Wallis A, McCoubrie P. The radiology report--are we getting the message across? Clin Radiol. 2011;66(11):1015–22.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Rothman M. Malpractice issues in radiology: radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(4):1108–9.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Yang C, Kasales CJ, Ouyang T, Peterson CM, Sarwani NI, Tappouni R, Bruno M. A succinct rating scale for radiology report quality. SAGE Open Med. 2014;2:2050312114563101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Wallis A, Edey A, Prothero D, McCoubrie P. The Bristol radiology report assessment tool (BRRAT): developing a workplace-based assessment tool for radiology reporting skills. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(11):1146–54.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Bosmans JM, Peremans L, Menni M, De Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM. Structured reporting: if, why, when, how-and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights Imaging. 2012;3(3):295–302.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, Curtis JR, Delzell ES, Randall S, Dawson-Hughes B. The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(11):2520–6.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Lotters FJ, van den Bergh JP, de Vries F, Rutten-van Molken MP. Current and future incidence and costs of osteoporosis-related fractures in the Netherlands: combining claims data with BMD measurements. Calcif Tissue Int. 2016;98(3):235–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Khadilkar AV, Mandlik RM. Epidemiology and treatment of osteoporosis in women: an Indian perspective. Int J Women's Health. 2015;7:841–50.CrossRef
42.
43.
Srinivasa Babu A, Brooks ML. The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):547–54.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Powell DK, Silberzweig JE. State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(2):226–33.PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
Tsai IT, Tsai MY, Wu MT, Chen CK. Development of an automated bone mineral density software application: facilitation radiologic reporting and improvement of accuracy. J Digit Imaging. 2016;29(3):380–7.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Abujudeh HH, Govindan S, Narin O, Johnson JO, Thrall JH, Rosenthal DI. Automatically inserted technical details improve radiology report accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8(9):635–7.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Structured reporting has the potential to reduce reporting times of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams
Authors
Su Hwan Kim
Lara M. Sobez
Judith E. Spiro
Adrian Curta
Felix Ceelen
Eric Kampmann
Martin Goepfert
Raphael Bodensohn
Felix G. Meinel
Wieland H. Sommer
Nora N. Sommer
Franziska Galiè
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03200-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2020 Go to the issue

Case report

Recurrent lumbar-origin osteoblastoma treated with multiple surgery and carbon ion radiotherapy: a case report

Research article

Retention of metals in periprosthetic tissues of patients with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty is reflected in the synovial fluid to blood cobalt transfer ratio in the presence of a pseudotumour

Study protocol

Evaluation of the efficacy of an internet-based pain education and exercise program for chronic musculoskeletal pain in comparison with online self-management booklet: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial with assessor-blinded, 12-month follow-up, and economic evaluation

Research article

Decreasing the number of arthroscopies in knee osteoarthritis – a service evaluation of a de-implementation strategy

Review

Understanding cartilage protection in OA and injury: a spectrum of possibilities

Research article

Exercise program combined with electrophysical modalities in subjects with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial