Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structured reporting in petrous bone MRI examinations: impact on report completeness and quality

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether structured reports (SRs) provide benefits regarding the completeness and the clarity of reports, as well as regarding the satisfaction of the referring physicians compared to narrative freetext reports (NRs) of MRI examinations of the petrous bone.

Methods

After sample size calculation, 32 patients with clinically indicated MRI examinations of the petrous bone were included in this retrospective study. The already existing NRs were taken from the radiologic information system. The corresponding SRs were retrospectively generated by two radiologists using an online-based application. All 64 reports (one NR and one SR per patient) were evaluated by two head and neck physicians using a questionnaire.

Results

While 41% of the SRs showed no missing report key feature, all NRs exhibited at least one missing key feature (p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher satisfaction rates regarding the linguistic quality and overall report quality compared to NRs: Using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = insufficient to 6 = excellent), SRs were rated with a median value of 6 [interquartile range (IQR): 1] for linguistic as well as overall quality, and NRs were rated with a median of 5 (IQR: 0) for linguistic as well as overall quality (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Structured reporting of petrous bone MRI examinations may positively influence the completeness and quality of radiologic reports. Due to the easier readability and facilitation of information extraction, SRs improve the satisfaction level of the referring physicians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

SRs:

Structured reports

NRs:

Narrative freetext reports

std:

Standard deviation

IQR:

Interquartile range

References

  1. Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF (2013) Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting. Radiology 267(1):240–250. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(2):464–472. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260(1):174–181. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101913

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Norenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W, D’Haese J, Rentsch M, Kolben T, Schreyer A, Rist C, Reiser M, Armbruster M (2017) Structured reporting of rectal magnetic resonance imaging in suspected primary rectal cancer: potential benefits for surgical planning and interdisciplinary communication. Invest Radiol 52(4):232–239. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gassenmaier S, Armbruster M, Haasters F, Helfen T, Henzler T, Alibek S, Pforringer D, Sommer WH, Sommer NN (2017) Structured reporting of MRI of the shoulder—improvement of report quality? Eur Radiol 27(10):4110–4119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4778-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hawkins CM, Hall S, Zhang B, Towbin AJ (2014) Creation and implementation of department-wide structured reports: an analysis of the impact on error rate in radiology reports. J Digit Imaging 27(5):581–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9699-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR (2001) Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(3):591–598. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760591

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH (2010) Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol 83(985):17–22. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/16360063

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH (2009) Survey of hospital clinicians’ preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 64(4):386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2008.11.009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weiss DL, Langlotz CP (2008) Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 249(3):739–747. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2493080988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(1):184–195. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sierra AE, Bisesi MA, Rosenbaum TL, Potchen EJ (1992) Readability of the radiologic report. Invest Radiol 27(3):236–239

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sobel JL, Pearson ML, Gross K, Desmond KA, Harrison ER, Rubenstein LV, Rogers WH, Kahn KL (1996) Information content and clarity of radiologists’ reports for chest radiography. Acad Radiol 3(9):709–717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sangwaiya MJ, Saini S, Blake MA, Dreyer KJ, Kalra MK (2009) Errare humanum est: frequency of laterality errors in radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(5):W239–W244. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hawkins CM, Hall S, Hardin J, Salisbury S, Towbin AJ (2012) Prepopulated radiology report templates: a prospective analysis of error rate and turnaround time. J Digit Imaging 25(4):504–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9455-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J (2005) Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185(3):804–812. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.185.3.01850804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2009) Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 253(1):74–80. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2531090138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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(3):584–588. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Haack M, Havel M, Rheinwald M, Wechtenbruch J, Fischer MR, Meinel FG, Sabel BO, Sommer NN (2018) Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports. Eur Radiol 28(1):308–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4971-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Foundation, Inc (1995) Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the diagnosis and evaluation of therapy in Meniere’s disease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113(3):181–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0194-5998(95)70102-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lopez-Escamez JA, Carey J, Chung WH, Goebel JA, Magnusson M, Mandala M, Newman-Toker DE, Strupp M, Suzuki M, Trabalzini F, Bisdorff A, Classification Committee of the Barany S, Japan Society for Equilibrium R, European Academy of O, Neurotology, Equilibrium Committee of the American Academy of O-H, Neck S, Korean Balance S (2015) Diagnostic criteria for Meniere’s disease. J Vestib Res 25(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-150549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Marcovici PA, Taylor GA (2014) Journal club: structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203(6):1265–1271. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin E, Powell DK, Kagetsu NJ (2014) Efficacy of a checklist-style structured radiology reporting template in reducing resident misses on cervical spine computed tomography examinations. J Digit Imaging 27(5):588–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9703-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson AJ (2012) All structured reporting systems are not created equal. Radiology 262(2):726. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11111679 (Author reply 726-727)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. (RSNA) RSoNA RadLex. https://www.rsna.org/RadLex.aspx. Accessed Jan 2018

  27. (RSNA) RSoNA RadReport. http://www.radreport.org/. Accessed Jan 2018

  28. Langlotz CP (2009) Structured radiology reporting: are we there yet? Radiology 253(1):23–25. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2531091088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. American College of Radiology (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS®), 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. American College of Radiology. Liver imaging reporting and data system version 2017. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LIRADS. Accessed Jan 2018

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Marco Armbruster and Sebastian Gassenmaier have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Marco Armbruster, Sebastian Gassenmaier, Dominik Nörenberg, Nora N. Sommer, Wieland H. Sommer & Franziska Braun

  2. Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany

    Mareike Haack & Maximilian Reiter

  3. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Thomas Henzler

Authors
  1. Marco Armbruster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Gassenmaier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mareike Haack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maximilian Reiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dominik Nörenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Henzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nora N. Sommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wieland H. Sommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Franziska Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Gassenmaier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Marco Armbruster and author Wieland H. Sommer were co-founders of a company (Smart Reporting GmbH) for structured reporting (www.smart-radiology.com).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article does not contain patient data beyond the anonymized retrospective imaging data. Informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 176 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Armbruster, M., Gassenmaier, S., Haack, M. et al. Structured reporting in petrous bone MRI examinations: impact on report completeness and quality. Int J CARS 13, 1971–1980 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1828-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1828-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation