Director of the Abdominal Imaging Fellowship Program, Department of Radiology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina.
Department of Radiology, Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2021 Feb;18(2):265-273. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.07.024. Epub 2020 Aug 18.
To compare the effectiveness of different reporting templates using the ACR Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) for thyroid ultrasound.
In this retrospective study, four radiologists implemented ACR TI-RADS while dictating 20 thyroid ultrasounds for each of four different templates: free text, minimally structured, fully structured, fully structured and automated (embedded software automatically sums TI-RADS points, correlates with nodule size, and inserts appropriate recommendation into report impression). In total, 80 reports were constructed per template type. Frequencies of different errors related to ACR TI-RADS were recorded: errors in point assignment, point addition, risk-level assignment, and recommendation. Reporting times were recorded, and a survey about using the template was administered. Differences in error rates were compared using χ and Fisher's exact tests, and differences in reporting times were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Across all readers, errors were identified in 27.5% of reports (22 of 80) for the free text template, 28.8% (23 of 80) for the minimally structured template, 18.8% (15 of 80) for the fully structured template, and 0% (0 of 80) for the fully structured and automated template (P < .0001). Frequency of each error type (number assignment, addition, TR categorization, recommendation) decreased across the four templates (P < .0005 to P < .005). Median reporting times for the less complex templates were 210 to 240 seconds, whereas the median automated template reporting time was 180 seconds (P = .41). Radiologists subjectively preferred using the automated template.
A structured reporting template for thyroid ultrasound that automatically executed steps of ACR TI-RADS resulted in fewer reporting errors for radiologists.
比较使用 ACR 甲状腺成像报告和数据系统（TI-RADS）进行甲状腺超声检查的不同报告模板的效果。
在这项回顾性研究中，四位放射科医生在使用 ACR TI-RADS 时，分别为四种不同模板（自由文本、最小结构化、完全结构化、完全结构化和自动化（嵌入式软件自动汇总 TI-RADS 点，与结节大小相关联，并将适当的建议插入报告印象））的 20 个甲状腺超声进行了报告。每个模板类型总共构建了 80 份报告。记录了与 ACR TI-RADS 相关的不同错误的频率：点分配、点添加、风险级别分配和建议错误。记录报告时间，并进行有关模板使用的调查。使用 χ 和 Fisher 精确检验比较错误率的差异，使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验比较报告时间的差异。
在所有读者中，自由文本模板的报告中有 27.5%（22/80）出现错误，最小结构化模板中有 28.8%（23/80），完全结构化模板中有 18.8%（15/80），完全结构化和自动化模板中没有错误（0/80）（P<.0001）。随着模板的复杂程度增加，每种错误类型（数字分配、添加、TR 分类、建议）的频率均降低（P<.0005 至 P<.005）。较简单模板的报告中位时间为 210 至 240 秒，而自动化模板的报告中位时间为 180 秒（P=0.41）。放射科医生主观上更喜欢使用自动化模板。
用于甲状腺超声的结构化报告模板自动执行 ACR TI-RADS 的步骤，减少了放射科医生的报告错误。
