Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey

  • Computer Applications
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the opinion on structured reporting (SR) and its usage by radiologist members of the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) via an online survey.

Methods

All members received an email invitation to join the survey as an initiative by the SIRM Imaging Informatics Chapter. The survey included 10 questions about demographic information, definition of radiological SR, its usage in everyday practice, perceived advantages and disadvantages over conventional reporting and overall opinion about SR.

Results

1159 SIRM members participated in the survey. 40.3 % of respondents gave a correct definition of radiological SR, but as many as 56 % of them never used it at work. Compared with conventional reporting, the most appreciated advantages of SR were higher reproducibility (70.5 %), better interaction with referring clinicians (58.3 %) and the option to link metadata (36.7 %). Risk of excessive simplification (59.8 %), template rigidity (56.1 %) and poor user compliance (42.1 %) were the most significant disadvantages. Overall, most respondents (87.0 %) were in favour of the adoption of radiological SR.

Conclusions

Most radiologists were interested in radiological SR and in favour of its adoption. However, concerns about semantic, technical and professional issues limited its diffusion in real working life, encouraging efforts towards improved SR standardisation and engineering.

Key Points

• Despite radiologists’ awareness, radiological SR is little used in working practice.

• Perceived SR advantages are reproducibility, better clinico-radiological interaction and link to metadata.

• Perceived SR disadvantages are excessive simplification, template rigidity and poor user compliance.

• Improved standardisation and engineering may be helpful to boost SR diffusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kalender WA, Quick HH (2011) Recent advances in medical physics. Eur Radiol 21:501–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thrall JH (2014) Appropriateness and imaging utilization: "computerized provider order entry and decision support". Acad Radiol 21:1083–1087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hussein R, Engelmann U, Schroeter A, Meinzer HP (2004) DICOM structured reporting: Part 2. Problems and challenges in implementation for PACS workstations. Radiographics 24:897–909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260:174–181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF (2013) Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting. Radiology 267:240–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clunie DA (2000) DICOM structured reporting. PixelMed, Bangor

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES et al (2009) Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 252:852–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Noumeir R (2006) Benefits of the DICOM structured report. J Digit Imaging 19:295–306

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bosmans JM, Peremans L, Menni M, De Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM (2012) Structured reporting: if, why, when, how-and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights Imaging 3:295–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bosmans JM, Neri E, Ratib O, Kahn CE Jr (2015) Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel. Insights Imaging 6:129–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Margolies LR, Pandey G, Horowitz ER, Mendelson DS (2016) Breast imaging in the era of big data: structured reporting and data mining. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:259–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Karim S, Fegeler C, Boeckler D, H Schwartz L, Kauczor HU, von Tengg-Kobligk H (2013) Development, implementation, and evaluation of a structured reporting web tool for abdominal aortic aneurysms. JMIR Res Protoc 2, e30

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Barbosa F, Maciel LM, Vieira EM, Azevedo Marques PM, Elias J, Muglia VF (2010) Radiological reports: a comparison between the transmission efficiency of information in free text and in structured reports. Clinics 65:15–21

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Marcovici PA, Taylor GA (2014) Journal Club: structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1265–1271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Durack JC (2014) The value proposition of structured reporting in interventional radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:734–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weiss DL, Langlotz CP (2008) Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 249:739–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. RadLex (2016) https://www.radlex.org. Accessed 11 Jun 2016

  19. European Society of Radiology (2013) ESR communication guidelines for radiologists. Insights Imaging 4:143–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baron RL (2014) The radiologist as interpreter and translator. Radiology 272:4–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouvière O (2014) Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 272:446–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Winter TC (2015) The propaedeutics of structured reporting. Radiology 275:309–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reiner BI (2012) Optimizing technology development and adoption in medical imaging using the principles of innovation diffusion, part II: practical applications. J Digit Imaging 25:7–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Coppola F, Bibbolino C, Grassi R et al (2016) Results of an Italian survey on teleradiology. Radiol Med. doi:10.1007/s11547-016-0640-7

  25. Ranschaert ER, Binkhuysen FH (2013) European teleradiology now and in the future: results of an online survey. Insights Imaging 4:93–102

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Travis AR, Sevenster M, Ganesh R, Peters JF, Chang PJ (2014) Preferences for structured reporting of measurement data: an institutional survey of medical oncologists, oncology registrars, and radiologists. Acad Radiol 21:785–796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2009) Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 253:74–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Langlotz CP (2009) Structured radiology reporting: are we there yet? Radiology 253:23–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sistrom CL, Langlotz CP (2005) A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2:159–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang S, Pavlicek W, Roberts CC et al (2011) An automated DICOM database capable of arbitrary data mining (including radiation dose indicators) for quality monitoring. J Digit Imaging 24:223–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lauretti DL, Neri E, Faggioni L, Paolicchi F, Caramella D, Bartolozzi C (2015) Automated contrast medium monitoring system for computed tomography—intra-institutional audit. Comput Med Imaging Graph 46(Pt 2):209–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Daniele Regge, MD. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was not required because this paper shows the results of a survey and did not involve human or animal subjects. Methodology: online survey (multicentre study).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UO Radiodiagnostica 1, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa, 2, 56100, Pisa, Italy

    Lorenzo Faggioni

  2. Malpighi Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic and Preventive Medicine, Sant’Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Via Albertoni, 15, 40138, Bologna, Italy

    Francesca Coppola

  3. UOC Diagnostica per Immagini 1, Urgenza Emergenza, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Camillo-Forlanini. C.ne Gianicolense, 87, 00152, Rome, Italy

    Riccardo Ferrari

  4. Sezione Dipartimentale Radiodiagnostica 3, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Dipartimento di Ricerca Traslazionale, Università di Pisa, Ospedale S. Chiara - Edificio 18, Via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy

    Emanuele Neri

  5. Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Università di Torino, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Str. Prov. 142, km 3.95, I-10060, Candiolo (To), Italy

    Daniele Regge

Authors
  1. Lorenzo Faggioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Coppola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Riccardo Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emanuele Neri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniele Regge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorenzo Faggioni.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Questionnaire choices (Q1–Q5 and Q10, single choice; Q6–Q9, multiple choice)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faggioni, L., Coppola, F., Ferrari, R. et al. Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey. Eur Radiol 27, 1934–1943 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4553-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4553-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation