Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Rd., Durham, NC, 27705.
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Acad Radiol. 2021 May;28(5):671-675. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.03.037. Epub 2020 May 15.
To assess whether abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) radiology reports directly address a cause for pain when pain is included in the scan indication.
Four hundred and ninety-five random abdominopelvic CT reports containing "pain" in the indication were retrospectively reviewed. The position of pain descriptors within the indication, the presence of an oncology-related indication in addition to pain and whether a cause for pain was addressed in the impression were recorded. Linguistic analysis of indication and impression sections was performed. Comparisons between reports that addressed pain and those that did not were conducted using Chi-square, Fisher exact, and two-tailed t-tests.
A cause for pain was addressed in 454 of 495 (91.7%) report impressions. Indications with both oncology-related and pain-related descriptors were less likely to have pain directly addressed (χ (1, N = 495) = 16.4, p < .001). There was no significant association between where pain appeared within the indication and whether pain was addressed (χ (1, N = 495) = 3.2, p = .07). Whether an impression conveyed a normal result did not influence if pain was addressed (p = .49). Impression word count and complexity were higher in the addressed group compared to the not addressed group (word count 66.6 vs. 51.9, p= .02, Composite grade level 30.1 vs. 25.3, p= .02).
Radiologists at our institution consistently addressed a cause for pain on abdominopelvic CTs when pain was in the indication. However, oncology patients who also had an indication of pain were less likely to have a cause for pain addressed. Impression complexity was high for all reports, though higher in those where pain was addressed.
评估当扫描适应证中包含疼痛时，腹盆部 CT 影像学报告是否直接针对疼痛原因进行描述。
回顾性分析 495 份随机腹盆部 CT 报告，这些报告的适应证中均包含“疼痛”。记录疼痛描述符在适应证中的位置、除疼痛以外是否存在肿瘤相关适应证，以及印象中是否提及疼痛原因。对适应证和印象部分进行语言学分析。使用卡方检验、Fisher 确切检验和双侧 t 检验比较报告中是否直接针对疼痛进行描述。
在 495 份报告印象中，有 454 份（91.7%）提及了疼痛原因。同时具有肿瘤相关和疼痛相关描述符的适应证更不可能直接提及疼痛（χ（1，N=495）=16.4，p<0.001）。疼痛在适应证中出现的位置与是否直接提及疼痛之间无显著相关性（χ（1，N=495）=3.2，p=0.07）。印象是否传达正常结果并不影响是否直接提及疼痛（p=0.49）。与未提及疼痛的组相比，提及疼痛的组印象中的字数和复杂程度更高（字数 66.6 与 51.9，p=0.02；综合等级水平 30.1 与 25.3，p=0.02）。
本机构放射科医生在腹盆部 CT 适应证中包含疼痛时，始终会针对疼痛原因进行描述。然而，同时具有疼痛适应证的肿瘤患者更不可能提及疼痛原因。所有报告的印象均较复杂，而提及疼痛的报告则更为复杂。
