AJR InPractice
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sistrom, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Honeyman-Buck, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sistrom, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Honeyman-Buck, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2005; 185:804-812
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Free Text Versus Structured Format: Information Transfer Efficiency of Radiology Reports

Chris L. Sistrom and Janice Honeyman-Buck

Department of Radiology, University of Florida Health Center, PO Box 100374, Gainesville, FL 32610.

OBJECTIVE. We discuss the effect of radiology report format on the accuracy and speed with which reviewers can extract case-specific information.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A Web-based testing mechanism was used to present radiology reports to each of 16 senior medical students and record their answers to 10 multiple choice questions about specific medical content for each of 12 cases. Subjects were randomly assigned to view the reports in either free text or structured format. In addition to number of answers correct for each case, we recorded the time taken for each case and an efficiency score (correctly answered questions per minute). These three outcomes were tested for differences on report format using multifactorial analysis of variance. A postexperimental questionnaire and a mediated focus group elicited subject preference as to radiology report format.

RESULTS. There were no significant differences in the three outcomes (score, time, and efficiency) between the free text and structured format conditions. The power of the experiment was sufficient to detect small differences in these outcomes by format. Subjects strongly and consistently expressed a preference for the structured version.

CONCLUSION. We assert that free text and itemized (structured) forms of radiology reports are equally efficient and accurate for transmitting case-specific interpretative content to reviewers of the document.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
L. Berlin
Replacing traditional text radiology reports with image-centric reports: a shift from epiphany to enigma?
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2006; 187(5): 1156 - 1159.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.