ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017
Use of a Web-Based Calculator and a Structured Report Generator to Improve Efficiency, Accuracy, and Consistency of Radiology Reporting.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiological Structured Report Integrated with Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers and Qualitative Scoring Systems.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- Structured reporting has the potential to reduce reporting times of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- The state of structured reporting: the nuance of standardized language.Pediatric radiology · 2019Review
- Recall of structured radiology reports is significantly superior to that of unstructured reports.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While medical calculators are common, they are infrequently used in the day-to-day radiology practice. We hypothesized that a calculator coupled with a structured report generator would decrease the time required to interpret and dictate a study in addition to decreasing the number of errors in interpretation. A web-based application was created to help radiologists calculate leg-length discrepancies. A time motion study was performed to evaluate if the calculator helped to decrease the time for interpretation and dictation of leg-length radiographs. Two radiologists each evaluated two sets of ten radiographs, one set using the traditional pen and paper method and the other set using the calculator. The time to interpret each study and the time to dictate each study were recorded. In addition, each calculation was checked for errors. When comparing the two methods of calculating the leg lengths, the manual method was significantly slower than the calculator for all time points measured: the mean time to calculate the leg-length discrepancy (131.8 vs. 59.7 s; p < 0.001), the mean time to dictate the report (31.8 vs. 11 s; p < 0.001), and the mean total time (163.7 vs. 70.7 s; p < 0.001). Reports created by the calculator were more accurate than reports created via the manual method (100 vs. 90%), although this result was not significant (p = 0.16). A calculator with a structured report generator significantly improved the time required to calculate and dictate leg-length discrepancy studies.
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.