Structured reports of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in primary endometrial cancer: Potential benefits for clinical decision-making.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Clinical Decision-Making
Communication
Endometrial Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Gynecology
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Pelvis
/ diagnostic imaging
Radiologists
Research Report
/ standards
Retrospective Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
23
10
2018
accepted:
04
03
2019
entrez:
26
3
2019
pubmed:
26
3
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although evidence is increasing that the implementation of structured reports (SRs) may increase the standardization of reports and improve communication between radiologists and end-users, it is unclear whether these alternative formats of Chinese radiological narratives are appealing or even acceptable to radiologists and clinicians. To compare the effect of SRs and non-structured reports (NSRs) of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with primary endometrial cancer on referring gynecologists' satisfaction, further decision-making and efficiency. Forty-one patients with histologically proven endometrial cancer were included in this study. SRs and NSRs for local MRI staging of endometrial cancer were generated for all subjects. NSRs were generated during clinical routine practice. The same 41 uterine studies were reviewed by the same radiologist using structured reporting system after a period of time. Two radiologists compared SRs on the number of key features related to cancer staging and writing efficiency with NSRs together. Five gynecologists filled in questionnaires regarding satisfaction with content, clinical usefulness, report' quality and time consumption. Statistical analysis included Kendall's W test, paired-sample t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. There was no significant difference in the number of key features in NSRs comparison to SRs (p = 0.055). A statistically significant difference was observed in the satisfaction with linguistic quality for NSRs versus SRs by three gynaecologists (reader 1: 4.02 vs. 4.63, p = 0.002; reader 3: 3.86 vs. 4.02, p = 0.035; reader 4: 4.05 vs. 4.27, p = 0.024). The radiologist spent less time finishing SRs compared with NSRs (727.22 ± 38.42 sec vs. 616.44 ± 60.00 sec, p = 0.037). The application of SRs significantly increased the value of female pelvic MRI reports by increasing radiologists' work efficiency and gynaecologists' satisfaction.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although evidence is increasing that the implementation of structured reports (SRs) may increase the standardization of reports and improve communication between radiologists and end-users, it is unclear whether these alternative formats of Chinese radiological narratives are appealing or even acceptable to radiologists and clinicians.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effect of SRs and non-structured reports (NSRs) of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with primary endometrial cancer on referring gynecologists' satisfaction, further decision-making and efficiency.
METHODS
Forty-one patients with histologically proven endometrial cancer were included in this study. SRs and NSRs for local MRI staging of endometrial cancer were generated for all subjects. NSRs were generated during clinical routine practice. The same 41 uterine studies were reviewed by the same radiologist using structured reporting system after a period of time. Two radiologists compared SRs on the number of key features related to cancer staging and writing efficiency with NSRs together. Five gynecologists filled in questionnaires regarding satisfaction with content, clinical usefulness, report' quality and time consumption. Statistical analysis included Kendall's W test, paired-sample t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in the number of key features in NSRs comparison to SRs (p = 0.055). A statistically significant difference was observed in the satisfaction with linguistic quality for NSRs versus SRs by three gynaecologists (reader 1: 4.02 vs. 4.63, p = 0.002; reader 3: 3.86 vs. 4.02, p = 0.035; reader 4: 4.05 vs. 4.27, p = 0.024). The radiologist spent less time finishing SRs compared with NSRs (727.22 ± 38.42 sec vs. 616.44 ± 60.00 sec, p = 0.037).
CONCLUSIONS
The application of SRs significantly increased the value of female pelvic MRI reports by increasing radiologists' work efficiency and gynaecologists' satisfaction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30908525
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213928
pii: PONE-D-18-30404
pmc: PMC6433257
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0213928Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Digit Imaging. 2014 Oct;27(5):581-7
pubmed: 24859725
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Mar;176(3):591-8
pubmed: 11222186
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Mar;14(3):371-379.e1
pubmed: 27932248
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):109
pubmed: 19345353
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Sep-Oct;21(5):808-14
pubmed: 24347408
Radiology. 2015 Feb;274(2):464-72
pubmed: 25286323
J Digit Imaging. 2014 Oct;27(5):588-93
pubmed: 24865860
Acad Radiol. 2015 Feb;22(2):226-33
pubmed: 25442793
Clin Radiol. 2009 Apr;64(4):386-94; 395-6
pubmed: 19264183
Acad Radiol. 2014 Jun;21(6):785-96
pubmed: 24809319
Radiology. 2009 Oct;253(1):74-80
pubmed: 19709993
J Digit Imaging. 2012 Feb;25(1):63-9
pubmed: 22038513
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 May;105(2):103-4
pubmed: 19367689
Acad Radiol. 2002 Sep;9(9):1056-61
pubmed: 12238549
J Am Coll Radiol. 2012 Jun;9(6):388-90
pubmed: 22632661
Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24 Suppl 6:vi33-8
pubmed: 24078661
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108
pubmed: 25651787
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Sep;185(3):804-12
pubmed: 16120938
Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2015;10(4):309-16
pubmed: 26411949
Radiologia. 2008 Nov-Dec;50(6):449-61
pubmed: 19100204
Lancet. 2005 Aug 6-12;366(9484):491-505
pubmed: 16084259