Skip to main content
Log in

Multicenter survey clarifying phrases in emergency radiology reports

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Interactions between radiologists and emergency physicians are often diminished as imaging volume increases and more radiologists read off site. We explore how several commonly used phrasings are perceived by radiologists and emergency physicians to decrease ambiguity in reporting.

Methods

An anonymous survey was distributed to attendings and residents at seven academic radiology and emergency departments across the USA via a digital platform as well as to an email group consisting of radiologists across the country with an interest in quality assurance. Physicians were asked to assign a percent score to probabilistic phrases such as, “suspicious of,” or “concerned for.” Additional questions including, “how often the report findings are reviewed,” “what makes a good radiology report,” and “when is it useful to use the phrase ‘clinical correlation are recommended.’” Median scores and confidence intervals were compared using an independent Student’s T-test.

Results

Generally, there was agreement between radiologists and emergency room physicians in how they interpret probabilistic phrases except for the phrases, “compatible with,” and “subcentimeter liver lesions too small to characterize.” Radiologists consider a useful report to answer the clinical question, be concise, and well organized. Emergency physicians consider a useful report to be concise, definitive or include a differential diagnosis, answer the clinical question, and recommend a next step. Radiologists and emergency physicians did not agree on the usefulness of the phrase, “clinical correlation recommended,” in which radiologists found the phrase more helpful under particular circumstances.

Conclusion

The survey demonstrated a wide range of answers for probabilistic phrases for both radiologists and emergency physicians. While the medians and means of the two groups were often different by statistical significance, the actual percent difference was minor. These wide range of answers suggest that use of probabilistic phrases may sometimes lead to misinterpretation between radiologist and emergency room physician and should be avoided or defined if possible.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Available.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Reiner B et al (1999) Impact of filmless radiology on frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173(5):1169–1172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berlin L (2000) Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174(6):1511–1518

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP (2008) The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 5(5):626–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Panicek DM, Hricak H (2016) How Sure Are You, Doctor? A standardized lexicon to describe the radiologist’s level of certainty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(1):2–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Selvarajan SK, Levin DC, Parker L (2019) The increasing use of emergency department imaging in the united states: is it appropriate? AJR Am J Roentgenol 213(4):W180–W184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Grant MD et al (2021) Are we speaking the same language? Communicating diagnostic probability in the radiology report. AJR Am J Roentgenol 216(3):806–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blagev DP et al (2014) Follow-up of incidental pulmonary nodules and the radiology report. J Am Coll Radiol 11(4):378–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Khalil HI, Patterson SA, Panicek DM (2005) Hepatic lesions deemed too small to characterize at CT: prevalence and importance in women with breast cancer. Radiology 235(3):872–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

None.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Makoto Ogawa.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ogawa, M., Lee, CH. & Friedman, B. Multicenter survey clarifying phrases in emergency radiology reports. Emerg Radiol 29, 855–862 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-022-02057-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-022-02057-x

Keywords

Navigation