Structured Reporting of CT Angiography Runoff Examinations of the Lower Extremities

Sabel, Bastian O.; Czihal, Michael; Lottspeich, Christian; Schönleben, Frank; Gäbel, Gábor; Schinner, Regina; Schoeppe, Franziska; Meinel, Felix G.

doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.01.026

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in line with previous studies that were able to demonstrate a correlation between structured reporting and high report quality in various diagnostic modalities [21, 23–25, 29, 36]. Our results also show that inexperienced examiners highly prefer SRs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Impact of structured reporting on developing head and neck ultrasound skills

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. This is a serious obstacle to the learning process of the modality due to a missing report structure and terminology. Therefore, there is a great inter-observer variability in overall report quality. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of structured reporting on the learning process as indicated by the overall report quality of head and neck ultrasound examinations within medical school education. Methods Following an immersion course on head and neck ultrasound, previously documented images of three common pathologies were handed out to 58 medical students who asked to create both standard free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR). A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion and readability by two independent raters (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI). Ratings were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ kappa). Additionally, a questionnaire was utilized to evaluate user satisfaction. Results SRs received significantly better ratings in terms of report completeness (97.7% vs. 53.5%, p < 0.001) regarding all items. In addition, pathologies were described in more detail using SRs (70% vs. 51.1%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 54.4%, p < 0.001). Mean time to complete was significantly lower (79.6 vs. 205.4 s, p < 0.001) and user satisfaction was significantly higher when using SRs (8.5 vs. 4.1, p < 0.001). Also, inter-rater reliability was very high (Fleiss’ kappa 0.93). Conclusions SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations provide more detailed information with a better readability in a time-saving manner within medical education. Also, medical students may benefit from SRs in their learning process due to the structured approach and standardized terminology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Impact of structured reporting on developing head and neck ultrasound skills

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall analysis of user satisfaction showed a clear superiority of structured reporting. These results are consistent with previous publications that were able to correlate the use of structured reporting with superior report quality for a wide range of diagnostic modalities [24,[26][27][28][29]31,32,34,36].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Evaluation of optimal education level to implement structured reporting into ultrasound training

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: Reporting of head and neck ultrasound (HNU) has been outlined to be a major obstacle during ultrasound training due to a lack of standardized structure, content and terminology. Consequently, overall report quality differs significantly between various examiners posing a severe risk factor for information loss and miscommunication. Therefore, the present study’s purpose is to compare the overall quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of HNU at various stages of training in order to determine the optimal educational level to implement SR.Material and methods: Typical pathologies in HNU were reported upon using SR and FTR by medical students, junior residents and senior residents. The reports were assessed for overall quality, time efficiency and readability. Additionally, user satisfaction was determined using a questionnaire.Results: SRs exhibited a significantly superior report quality (93.1% vs. 45.6%, p<0.001) at all training levels. Overall time efficiency was significantly better for SRs, especially at the stages of medical school and early residency (89.4 s vs. 160.2 s., p<0.001). Using structured reporting also increased user satisfaction significantly (VAS 8.6 vs. 3.9, p<0.001).Conclusions: Implementing structured reporting of HNU results in a superior report quality at all training stages. Greatest benefits for time efficiency are achieved by implementation during medical school. Therefore, structured reporting of HNU should be implemented early on in the training of HNU.

show abstract

“…To the best of our knowledge there have been no previous prospective studies on SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations. Additionally, this has been one of the largest prospective studies on structured reporting in general [10–13, 33, 34]. Our data showed that the use of SRs leads to significantly improved report quality, completeness and readability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner’s individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations. Methods Both standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss’ kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI). Results By comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs’ completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ kappa 0.92). Conclusions As compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.

show abstract

Structured Reporting of CT Angiography Runoff Examinations of the Lower Extremities

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

Impact of structured reporting on developing head and neck ultrasound skills

Impact of structured reporting on developing head and neck ultrasound skills

Evaluation of optimal education level to implement structured reporting into ultrasound training

Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About