Factors Impacting the Use of Terminology to Convey Diagnostic Certainty in Radiology Reports

R. Lacson, V. Babatunde, A. Shinagare, R. Khorasani
{"title":"Factors Impacting the Use of Terminology to Convey Diagnostic Certainty in Radiology Reports","authors":"R. Lacson, V. Babatunde, A. Shinagare, R. Khorasani","doi":"10.2174/1874431101812010051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Variable use of phrases expressing diagnostic uncertainty can lead to ambiguous radiology reports, a concern for information processing.\n \n \n \n This study aimed to quantify the usage of phrases conveying diagnostic certainty for abdominal imaging findings and assess factors that impact use of phrases with “good agreement” between radiologists and referring providers.\n \n \n \n This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-Approved study included all diagnostic reports generated by the Abdominal Radiology Division at an academic medical center July-September 2016. We assessed the use of 16 diagnostic certainty phrases using information retrieval from the Impression section of radiology reports. Phrases with good provider agreement for conveying the level of certainty are defined as “good agreement” phrases - including “diagnostic of”, “represents” and “unlikely.” We assessed the impact of imaging modality, trainee contribution to report generation, and individual radiologists.\n \n \n \n In 5,598 radiology reports, 2,071 (37%) contained diagnostic certainty phrases, 119 (6%) of which were “good agreement” phrases. There was a significant difference between how frequently “good agreement” phrases were used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT) and X-ray reports (p=0.0003). There was a significant variation among attending radiologists on the use of “good agreement” phrases (p<0.0019). There was no difference in the use of “good agreement” phrases in reports generated by attending radiologists alone compared to reports with trainees.\n \n \n \n Although phrases to convey diagnostic certainty were commonly used in radiology reports, the use of phrases with a good agreement was uncommon. Standardizing terminology to convey diagnostic certainty may reduce ambiguity in radiology reports and generate more accurate information processing tools.\n","PeriodicalId":88331,"journal":{"name":"The open medical informatics journal","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open medical informatics journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874431101812010051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Variable use of phrases expressing diagnostic uncertainty can lead to ambiguous radiology reports, a concern for information processing. This study aimed to quantify the usage of phrases conveying diagnostic certainty for abdominal imaging findings and assess factors that impact use of phrases with “good agreement” between radiologists and referring providers. This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-Approved study included all diagnostic reports generated by the Abdominal Radiology Division at an academic medical center July-September 2016. We assessed the use of 16 diagnostic certainty phrases using information retrieval from the Impression section of radiology reports. Phrases with good provider agreement for conveying the level of certainty are defined as “good agreement” phrases - including “diagnostic of”, “represents” and “unlikely.” We assessed the impact of imaging modality, trainee contribution to report generation, and individual radiologists. In 5,598 radiology reports, 2,071 (37%) contained diagnostic certainty phrases, 119 (6%) of which were “good agreement” phrases. There was a significant difference between how frequently “good agreement” phrases were used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT) and X-ray reports (p=0.0003). There was a significant variation among attending radiologists on the use of “good agreement” phrases (p<0.0019). There was no difference in the use of “good agreement” phrases in reports generated by attending radiologists alone compared to reports with trainees. Although phrases to convey diagnostic certainty were commonly used in radiology reports, the use of phrases with a good agreement was uncommon. Standardizing terminology to convey diagnostic certainty may reduce ambiguity in radiology reports and generate more accurate information processing tools.
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
影响放射学报告中使用术语以传达诊断确定性的因素
表达诊断不确定性的短语的可变使用可能导致模棱两可的放射学报告,这是信息处理的一个问题。本研究旨在量化表达腹部影像学发现诊断确定性的短语的使用,并评估影响放射科医生和转诊提供者之间“良好一致”短语使用的因素。这项经机构审查委员会批准的回顾性研究纳入了一家学术医疗中心腹部放射科2016年7月至9月生成的所有诊断报告。我们评估了16个诊断确定性短语的使用,使用信息检索来自放射学报告的印象部分。用于传达确定性水平的具有良好提供商协议的短语被定义为“良好协议”短语——包括“诊断的”、“代表的”和“不太可能的”。我们评估了成像方式、培训生对报告生成的贡献以及放射科医生个人的影响。在5598份放射学报告中,2071份(37%)包含诊断确定性短语,其中119份(6%)是“良好一致”短语。在磁共振成像(MRI)、计算机断层扫描(CT)和x射线报告中使用“良好一致”短语的频率之间存在显著差异(p=0.0003)。主治放射科医师在使用“良好一致”短语方面存在显著差异(p<0.0019)。在单独参加放射科医生的报告中,“良好协议”短语的使用与有培训生的报告相比没有差异。虽然表达诊断确定性的短语通常用于放射学报告,但使用具有良好一致性的短语并不常见。标准化术语以传达诊断的确定性可以减少放射学报告中的歧义,并产生更准确的信息处理工具。
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
期刊最新文献
Primary Healthcare Data Management Practice and Associated Factors: The Case of Health Extension Workers in Northwest Ethiopia Factors Impacting the Use of Terminology to Convey Diagnostic Certainty in Radiology Reports Developing a Dashboard Software for the ICUs and Studying its Impact on Reducing the Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Teleburn: Designing A Telemedicine Application to Improve Burn Treatment. A Review of Data Quality Assessment in Emergency Medical Services.
×
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