DICOM structured report: implementation notes for basic structured reporting system

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
DongOok Kim ◽  
DongHyuk Lee ◽  
JinHyung Lee ◽  
HeeJung Park ◽  
HyunWoo Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting System ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Structured Report

Institutional Implementation of a Structured Reporting System: Our Experience with the Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 974-980 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashwani Gore ◽  
Michael J. Hoch ◽  
Hui-Kuo G. Shu ◽  
Jeffrey J. Olson ◽  
Alfredo D. Voloschin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Tumor ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Data System ◽  
The Brain

scholarly journals Structured Reporting of Solid and Cystic Pancreatic Lesions in CT and MRI: Consensus-Based Structured Report Templates of the German Society of Radiology (DRG)

2020 ◽  
Vol 192 (07) ◽  
pp. 641-656
Author(s):  
Thorsten Persigehl ◽  
Matthias Baumhauer ◽  
Bettina Baeßler ◽  
Lukas Philipp Beyer ◽  
Marc Bludau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
German Society ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Clinical Staging ◽  
Pancreatic Tumors ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Structured Report ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Cystic Pancreatic Tumors ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri

Background Radiological reports of pancreatic lesions are currently widely formulated as free texts. However, for optimal characterization, staging and operation planning, a wide range of information is required but is sometimes not captured comprehensively. Structured reporting offers the potential for improvement in terms of completeness, reproducibility and clarity of interdisciplinary communication. Method Interdisciplinary consensus finding of structured report templates for solid and cystic pancreatic tumors in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with representatives of the German Society of Radiology (DRG), German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV), working group Oncological Imaging (ABO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and other radiologists, oncologists and surgeons. Results Among experts in the field of pancreatic imaging, oncology and pancreatic surgery, as well as in a public online survey, structured report templates were developed by consensus. These templates are available on the DRG homepage under www.befundung.drg.de and will be regularly revised to the current state of scientific knowledge by the participating specialist societies and responsible working groups. Conclusion This article presents structured report templates for solid and cystic pancreatic tumors to improve clinical staging (cTNM, ycTNM) in everyday radiology. Key Points:  Citation Format

scholarly journals Structured Reporting of Lung Cancer Staging: A Consensus Proposal

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1569
Author(s):  
Vincenza Granata ◽  
Roberto Grassi ◽  
Vittorio Miele ◽  
Anna Rita Larici ◽  
Nicola Sverzellati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
Cronbach’S Alpha ◽  
Cronbach's Alpha ◽  
Structured Report

Background: Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming necessary and has recently been recognized by major scientific societies. This study aimed to build CT-based structured reports for lung cancer during the staging phase, in order to improve communication between radiologists, members of the multidisciplinary team and patients. Materials and Methods: A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A modified Delphi exercise was used to build the structural report and to assess the level of agreement for all the report sections. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to perform a quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. Results: The final SR version was built by including 16 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, 4 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, 8 items in the “Exam Technique” section, 22 items in the “Report” section, and 5 items in the “Conclusion” section. Overall, 55 items were included in the final version of the SR. The overall mean of the scores of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.5 (range 1–5) and 631 (mean value 67.54, STD 7.53), respectively, in the first round. The items of the structured report with higher accordance in the first round were primary lesion features, lymph nodes, metastasis and conclusions. The overall mean of the scores of the experts and the sum of scores for staging in the structured report were 4.7 (range 4–5) and 807 (mean value 70.11, STD 4.81), respectively, in the second round. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.89 in the first round and 0.92 in the second round for staging in the structured report. Conclusions: The wide implementation of SR is critical for providing referring physicians and patients with the best quality of service, and for providing researchers with the best quality of data in the context of the big data exploitation of the available clinical data. Implementation is complex, requiring mature technology to successfully address pending user-friendliness, organizational and interoperability challenges.

scholarly journals Communicating with the hepatobiliary surgeon through structured report

BJR|Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 20190012
Author(s):  
Roberto Cannella ◽  
Adele Taibbi ◽  
Salvatore Pardo ◽  
Giuseppe Lo Re ◽  
Ludovico La Grutta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Preoperative Evaluation ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Focal Liver Lesions ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Structured Report ◽  
Adoption And Implementation ◽  
Cirrhotic Patients ◽  
Hepatic Lesions ◽  
Current Guidelines

Communicating radiological findings to hepatobiliary surgeons is not an easy task due to the complexity of liver imaging, coexistence of multiple hepatic lesions and different surgical treatment options. Recently, the adoption and implementation of structured report in everyday clinical practice has been supported to achieve higher quality, more reproducibility in communication and closer adherence to current guidelines. In this review article, we will illustrate the main benefits, strengths and limitations of structured reporting, with particular attention on the advantages and challenges of structured template in the preoperative evaluation of cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients with focal liver lesions. Structured reporting may improve the preoperative evaluation, focusing on answering specific clinical questions that are requested by hepatobiliary surgeons in candidates to liver resection.

Using a Website to Teach a Structured Reporting System, the Brain Tumor Reporting and Data System

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sera Kim ◽  
Michael J. Hoch ◽  
Maxwell E. Cooper ◽  
Ashwani Gore ◽  
Brent D. Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
Brain Tumor ◽  
Reporting System ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Data System ◽  
The Brain

scholarly journals Structured reporting of computed tomography in the staging of colon cancer: a Delphi consensus proposal

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenza Granata ◽  
Lorenzo Faggioni ◽  
Roberta Grassi ◽  
Roberta Fusco ◽  
Alfonso Reginelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Cronbach’S Alpha ◽  
Imaging Protocol ◽  
Cronbach's Alpha ◽  
Structured Report

Abstract Background Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in colon cancer during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist, members of multidisciplinary teams and patients. Materials and methods A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. Results The final SR version was built by including n = 18 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, n = 7 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, n = 9 items in the “Imaging Protocol” section and n = 29 items in the “Report” section. Overall, 63 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received a higher than good rating: a mean value of 4.6 and range 3.6–4.9 in the first round; a mean value of 5.0 and range 4.9–5 in the second round. In the first round, Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was a questionable 0.61. In the first round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.6 (range 1–5) and 1111 (mean value 74.07, STD 4.85), respectively. In the second round, Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was an acceptable 0.70. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 (range 4–5) and 1108 (mean value 79.14, STD 1.83), respectively. The overall mean score obtained by the experts in the second round was higher than the overall mean score of the first round, with a lower standard deviation value to underline greater agreement among the experts for the structured report reached in this round. Conclusions A wide implementation of SR is of critical importance in order to offer referring physicians and patients optimum quality of service and to provide researchers with the best quality data in the context of big data exploitation of available clinical data. Implementation is a complex procedure, requiring mature technology to successfully address the multiple challenges of user-friendliness, organization and interoperability.

scholarly journals Structured Reporting of Computed Tomography in the Staging of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus Proposal

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenza Granata ◽  
Francesca Coppola ◽  
Roberta Grassi ◽  
Roberta Fusco ◽  
Salvatore Tafuto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Structured Reporting ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
Neuroendocrine Neoplasms ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Imaging Protocol ◽  
Structured Report

BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams.Materials and MethodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A Modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.ResultsThe final SR version was built by including n=16 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, n=13 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, n=8 items in the “Imaging Protocol” section, and n=17 items in the “Report” section. Overall, 54 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received more than a good rating: a mean value of 4.7 and range of 4.2-5.0 in the first round and a mean value 4.9 and range of 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a poor 0.57: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.7 (range 1-5) and 728 (mean value 52.00 and standard deviation 2.83), respectively. In the second round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a good 0.82: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 760 (mean value 54.29 and standard deviation 1.64), respectively.ConclusionsThe present SR, based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise following in-depth discussion between expert radiologists in gastro-enteric and oncological imaging, derived from a multidisciplinary agreement between a radiologist, medical oncologist and surgeon in order to obtain the most appropriate communication tool for referring physicians.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document