HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ramaswamy, M. R. Articles by vanSonnenberg, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ramaswamy, M. R. Articles by vanSonnenberg, E. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Continuous Speech Recognition in MR Imaging Reporting

Advantages, Disadvantages, and Impact

¹ Department of Radiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd., Galveston, TX 77555-0465.
² Present address: Department of Radiology, University of California, S.F.G.H. (Bldg. NH, Rm. G100), 1001 Potrero Ave., San Francisco, CA 94110.
³ Present address: Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115.

OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to describe our experience with a commercially available continuous speech recognition system, highlighting the advantages, disadvantages, and costs compared with those of conventional transcription for MR imaging reports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data from 5072 reports generated in our MR imaging section during a 9-month period after the implementation of a commercial continuous speech recognition system were compared with 4552 reports produced during the same period 1 year earlier. Information pertaining to the use of continuous speech recognition, report turnaround time, word recognition rate, report appearance, and equipment costs was collected.

RESULTS. After its system installation, continuous speech recognition was used to dictate 81.8% of all reports. The mean report turnaround time decreased from 87.8 to 43.6 hr, and report availability at 24 hr increased from 10.5% to 62.5%. The system was found to have an average word recognition accuracy of 92.7% for spontaneous dictation. Mean report length declined from 95 to 60 words, with an increase in spacing errors from 0.3 to 8.0 per 1000 words and a decrease in spelling errors from 3.0 to 0.8 per 1000 words. Initial hardware and software costs were approximately $10,000, compared with a yearly cost of $12,000 for human transcription.

CONCLUSION. Although the technology is still evolving and was evaluated in its earliest implementation stages, continuous speech recognition nonetheless markedly improved report turnaround time and proved cost-effective.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. L. Weiss and C. P. Langlotz Structured Reporting: Patient Care Enhancement or Productivity Nightmare? Radiology, December 1, 2008; 249(3): 739 - 747. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S McGURK, K BRAUER, T V MACFARLANE, and K A DUNCAN The effect of voice recognition software on comparative error rates in radiology reports Br. J. Radiol., October 1, 2008; 81(970): 767 - 770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]