ArticleJournal of digital imaging2014
Creation and implementation of department-wide structured reports: an analysis of the impact on error rate in radiology reports.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Speech recognition for clinical documentation from 1990 to 2018: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Contextual structured annotations on PACS: a futuristic vision for reporting routine oncologic imaging studies and its potential to transform clinical work and research.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Structured reporting of dental panoramic images in a hospital-based radiology setting: a comparative study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of guided reporting: quality and reading time of automatically generated radiology report in breast magnetic resonance imaging using a dedicated software solution.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Impact of Structured Reporting of Lower Extremity CT Angiography on Report Quality and Workflow Efficiency.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Perceptions of radiologists on structured reporting for cancer imaging-a survey by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI).European radiology · 2024Article
- Generative Large Language Models for Detection of Speech Recognition Errors in Radiology Reports.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Eye-tracking differences between free text and template radiology reports: a pilot study.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- Know your way around acute unenhanced CT during global iodinated contrast crisis: a refresher to ED radiologists.Emergency radiology · 2022Review
- Synoptic reporting accuracy for computed tomography pulmonary arteriography among patients suspected of pulmonary embolism.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
- Radiological Structured Report Integrated with Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers and Qualitative Scoring Systems.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- Structured reporting of x-ray mammography in the first diagnosis of breast cancer: a Delphi consensus proposal.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- Radiologist Productivity Analytics: Factors Impacting Abdominal Pelvic CT Exam Reporting Times.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- An approach to evaluate the quality of radiological reports in Head and Neck cancer loco-regional staging: experience of two Academic Hospitals.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- [Structured reporting and artificial intelligence].Der Radiologe · 2021Review
- Structured Reporting of Lung Cancer Staging: A Consensus Proposal.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The radiology report in child abuse.Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
- State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare textual error rates and subtypes in radiology reports before and after implementation of department-wide structured reports. Randomly selected radiology reports that were generated following the implementation of department-wide structured reports were evaluated for textual errors by two radiologists. For each report, the text was compared to the corresponding audio file. Errors in each report were tabulated and classified. Error rates were compared to results from a prior study performed prior to implementation of structured reports. Calculated error rates included the average number of errors per report, average number of nongrammatical errors per report, the percentage of reports with an error, and the percentage of reports with a nongrammatical error. Identical versions of voice-recognition software were used for both studies. A total of 644 radiology reports were randomly evaluated as part of this study. There was a statistically significant reduction in the percentage of reports with nongrammatical errors (33 to 26%; p = 0.024). The likelihood of at least one missense omission error (omission errors that changed the meaning of a phrase or sentence) occurring in a report was significantly reduced from 3.5 to 1.2% (p = 0.0175). A statistically significant reduction in the likelihood of at least one comission error (retained statements from a standardized report that contradict the dictated findings or impression) occurring in a report was also observed (3.9 to 0.8%; p = 0.0007). Carefully constructed structured reports can help to reduce certain error types in radiology reports.
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.