Radiology reporting in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison of reporting completeness between different reporting styles and structure

IF 0.9 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Acta radiologica open Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1177/20584601241258675
G. Alvfeldt, Peter Aspelin, Lennart Blomqvist, Nina Sellberg
{"title":"Radiology reporting in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison of reporting completeness between different reporting styles and structure","authors":"G. Alvfeldt, Peter Aspelin, Lennart Blomqvist, Nina Sellberg","doi":"10.1177/20584601241258675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The radiology report is vital for providing imaging information to guide patient treatment, and template-based reporting can potentially increase the reporting completeness. In 2014, a national reporting template for radiological staging of rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was implemented in Sweden. To evaluate the impact of the national reporting template by comparing and analysing differences in content and completeness in MRI reports between 2010 and 2016. Focus was to compare reporting completeness (i) between different reporting years and (ii) between three defined reporting styles. 493 MRI reports were gathered from 10 hospitals in four healthcare regions in Sweden, comprising 243 reports from 2010 and 250 reports from 2016. Reports were classified into three reporting styles: Expanded structured, Minimised structured, and Unstructured, and analysed using qualitative content analysis based on the national template. In 2010, all reports adhered to Unstructured reporting. In 2016, 44, 42, and 164 reports were conformant to Expanded structured, Minimised structured, and Unstructured reporting, respectively. A comparison between the years revealed a reporting completeness of 48% for 2010 reports and 72% for 2016 reports. Among the 2016 reporting styles, Unstructured reporting had the largest gap compared to the national template, with completeness at 64% versus 77.5% for Minimised structured reporting and 93% for Expanded structured reporting. Implementation of template-based reporting according to Expanded structure is key to conform to national decided evidence-based practice for radiological staging of rectal cancer.","PeriodicalId":72063,"journal":{"name":"Acta radiologica open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta radiologica open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20584601241258675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The radiology report is vital for providing imaging information to guide patient treatment, and template-based reporting can potentially increase the reporting completeness. In 2014, a national reporting template for radiological staging of rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was implemented in Sweden. To evaluate the impact of the national reporting template by comparing and analysing differences in content and completeness in MRI reports between 2010 and 2016. Focus was to compare reporting completeness (i) between different reporting years and (ii) between three defined reporting styles. 493 MRI reports were gathered from 10 hospitals in four healthcare regions in Sweden, comprising 243 reports from 2010 and 250 reports from 2016. Reports were classified into three reporting styles: Expanded structured, Minimised structured, and Unstructured, and analysed using qualitative content analysis based on the national template. In 2010, all reports adhered to Unstructured reporting. In 2016, 44, 42, and 164 reports were conformant to Expanded structured, Minimised structured, and Unstructured reporting, respectively. A comparison between the years revealed a reporting completeness of 48% for 2010 reports and 72% for 2016 reports. Among the 2016 reporting styles, Unstructured reporting had the largest gap compared to the national template, with completeness at 64% versus 77.5% for Minimised structured reporting and 93% for Expanded structured reporting. Implementation of template-based reporting according to Expanded structure is key to conform to national decided evidence-based practice for radiological staging of rectal cancer.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用磁共振成像对直肠癌进行放射学报告:不同报告风格和结构的报告完整性比较
放射学报告对于提供影像学信息以指导患者治疗至关重要,而基于模板的报告有可能提高报告的完整性。2014 年,瑞典实施了使用磁共振成像(MRI)对直肠癌进行放射分期的国家报告模板。通过比较和分析 2010 年至 2016 年间 MRI 报告内容和完整性的差异,评估国家报告模板的影响。重点是比较 (i) 不同报告年份和 (ii) 三种定义报告样式之间的报告完整性。从瑞典四个医疗保健地区的 10 家医院收集了 493 份核磁共振成像报告,其中包括 2010 年的 243 份报告和 2016 年的 250 份报告。报告分为三种报告风格:并根据国家模板采用定性内容分析法进行分析。2010 年,所有报告均采用非结构化报告。2016 年,分别有 44 份、42 份和 164 份报告符合扩大结构化报告、简化结构化报告和非结构化报告。通过比较发现,2010 年报告的完整率为 48%,2016 年报告的完整率为 72%。在 2016 年的报告样式中,非结构化报告与国家模板相比差距最大,完整率为 64%,而最小化结构化报告为 77.5%,扩大结构化报告为 93%。根据扩展结构实施基于模板的报告是符合国家决定的直肠癌放射分期循证实践的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Differential diagnosis between low-risk and high-risk thymoma: Comparison of diagnostic performance of radiologists with and without deep learning model. Computed tomography patterns and clinical outcomes of radiation pneumonitis in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Cranial nerves bridging the middle ear and cerebellum causing cerebellar peduncle abscess: A case report. Invasive trigeminal ganglioneuroma: A case report and review of the literature. A case of primary osteosarcoma in the occipital bone: A relatively common tumor in an uncommon location.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1