ArticleJournal of digital imaging2008
Voice recognition dictation: radiologist as transcriptionist.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Improving Clinical Documentation with Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Perspectives in health information management · 2024Pooled it
- Speech recognition for clinical documentation from 1990 to 2018: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Speech Recognition for Medical Dictation: Overview in Quebec and Systematic Review.Journal of medical systems · 2018Pooled it
- Risks and benefits of speech recognition for clinical documentation: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Pooled it
- The effectiveness of service delivery initiatives at improving patients' waiting times in clinical radiology departments: a systematic review.Journal of digital imaging · 2014Pooled it
- Article
- Generative Large Language Models for Detection of Speech Recognition Errors in Radiology Reports.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Benefits, barriers, and facilitators of using speech recognition technology in nursing documentation and reporting: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Do clinical interview transcripts generated by speech recognition software improve clinical reasoning performance in mock patient encounters? A prospective observational study.BMC medical education · 2023Observational
- Speech Recognition System Generates Highly Accurate Endoscopic Reports in Clinical Practice.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023Observational
- Article
- Evaluation and comparison of errors on nursing notes created by online and offline speech recognition technology and handwritten: an interventional study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Alternative PACS interface devices are well-accepted and may reduce radiologist's musculoskeletal discomfort as compared to keyboard-mouse-recording device.European radiology · 2020Article
- Detecting insertion, substitution, and deletion errors in radiology reports using neural sequence-to-sequence models.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Performance of an Estonian Speech Recognition System for Radiology: Effects of Different Acoustic and Language Models.Journal of digital imaging · 2018Article
- Asynchronous Speech Recognition Affects Physician Editing of Notes.Applied clinical informatics · 2018Article
- Electronic Health Record Interactions through Voice: A Review.Applied clinical informatics · 2018Review
- Analysis of Errors in Dictated Clinical Documents Assisted by Speech Recognition Software and Professional Transcriptionists.JAMA network open · 2018Article
- Characterization of Change and Significance for Clinical Findings in Radiology Reports Through Natural Language Processing.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Article
- Frequency and analysis of non-clinical errors made in radiology reports using the National Integrated Medical Imaging System voice recognition dictation software.Irish journal of medical science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous voice recognition dictation systems for radiology reporting provide a viable alternative to conventional transcription services with the promise of shorter report turnaround times and increased cost savings. While these benefits may be realized in academic institutions, it is unclear how voice recognition dictation impacts the private practice radiologist who is now faced with the additional task of transcription. In this article, we compare conventional transcription services with a commercially available voice recognition system with the following results: 1) Reports dictated with voice recognition took 50% longer to dictate despite being 24% shorter than those conventionally transcribed, 2) There were 5.1 errors per case, and 90% of all voice recognition dictations contained errors prior to report signoff while 10% of transcribed reports contained errors. 3). After signoff, 35% of VR reports still had errors. Additionally, cost savings using voice recognition systems in non-academic settings may not be realized. Based on average radiologist and transcription salaries, the additional time spent dictating with voice recognition costs an additional $6.10 per case or $76,250.00 yearly. The opportunity costs may be higher. Informally surveyed, all radiologists expressed dissatisfaction with voice recognition with feelings of frustration, and increased fatigue. In summary, in non-academic settings, utilizing radiologists as transcriptionists results in more error ridden radiology reports and increased costs compared with conventional transcription services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.