Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey
- 303 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
KeywordsStructured reporting Conventional reporting DICOM Template RIS/PACS
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).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
- 7.Clunie DA (2000) DICOM structured reporting. PixelMed, BangorGoogle Scholar
- 18.RadLex (2016) https://www.radlex.org. Accessed 11 Jun 2016
- 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 272:446–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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