Travis Adam R, Sevenster Merlijn, Ganesh Rajiv, Peters Joost F, Chang Paul J
Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637.
Clinical Informatics, Philips Research North America, Briarcliff, New York.
Acad Radiol. 2014 Jun;21(6):785-96. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.02.008.
The aim of this study was to determine whether key radiology report "consumers" in our institution prefer structured measurement reporting in a dedicated report section over the current practice of embedding measurements throughout the "Findings" section, given the availability of new tools for quantitative imaging interpretation that enable automated structured reporting of measurement data.
Oncologic clinicians and radiologists at our institution were surveyed regarding their preferences for a standard report versus three reports each having uniquely formatted dedicated "Measurements" sections and regarding their impressions of various characteristics of report quality demonstrated by these reports. The online survey was completed by 25 radiologists, 16 oncologists, and 17 oncology nurses and research assistants (registrars).
Aggregation of respondents' preferences by group into single orderings using the Kemeny-Young method revealed that both oncology groups preferred all proposed reports to the standard report but that radiologists only preferred two of the proposed reports to the standard report. All preferences for proposed reports in the two oncology groups were statistically significant based on Wilcoxon tests, but the preference for only one of the proposed reports was significant for radiologists. Additional results suggest that these preferences are driven by respondent favor for the readability of and confidence conveyed by the proposed reports compared to the standard report.
Oncologic clinicians responding to our survey preferred communication of lesion measurements in a separate report section to the current practice of embedding measurements throughout the "Findings" section, based on their assessments of reports containing simulated measurement sections assembled from a single sample report using standardized formatting.
鉴于有新的定量成像解读工具可实现测量数据的自动结构化报告,本研究旨在确定我院关键的放射学报告“用户”是否更倾向于在专门的报告部分进行结构化测量报告,而非目前在“结果”部分通篇嵌入测量值的做法。
我们对我院的肿瘤临床医生和放射科医生进行了调查,了解他们对标准报告与三种各有独特格式的专门“测量”部分的报告的偏好,以及他们对这些报告所展示的报告质量的各种特征的看法。25名放射科医生、16名肿瘤学家以及17名肿瘤学护士和研究助理(登记员)完成了在线调查。
使用凯梅尼 - 杨方法将受访者按组的偏好汇总为单一排序,结果显示两个肿瘤学组都更倾向于所有提议的报告而非标准报告,但放射科医生仅更倾向于其中两份提议的报告而非标准报告。基于威尔科克森检验,两个肿瘤学组对提议报告的所有偏好均具有统计学意义,但放射科医生仅对其中一份提议报告的偏好具有统计学意义。其他结果表明,这些偏好是由受访者对提议报告相对于标准报告的可读性和传达的信心的青睐所驱动的。
参与我们调查的肿瘤临床医生基于对使用标准化格式从单个样本报告组装而成的包含模拟测量部分的报告的评估,更倾向于在单独的报告部分传达病变测量值,而非目前在“结果”部分通篇嵌入测量值的做法。