Content Analysis of Reporting Templates and Free-Text Radiology Reports

The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) has developed a set of templates for structured reporting of radiology results. To measure how much of the content of conventional narrative (“free-text”) reports is covered by the concepts included in the RSNA reporting templates, we selected five reporting templates that represented a variety of imaging modalities and organ systems. From a sample of 8,275 consecutive, de-identified radiology reports from an academic medical center, we identified one corresponding imaging procedure code for each reporting template. The reports were annotated with RadLex and SNOMED CT terms using the BioPortal Annotator web service. The reporting templates we examined accounted for 17 to 49 % of the concepts that actually appeared in a sample of corresponding radiology reports. The findings suggest that the concepts that appear in the reporting templates occur frequently within free-text clinical reports; thus, the templates provide useful coverage of the “domain of discourse” in radiology reports. The techniques used in this study may be helpful to guide the development of reporting templates by identifying concepts that occur frequently in radiology reports, to evaluate the coverage of existing templates, and to establish global benchmarks for reporting templates.

[1]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  Creating and Curating a Terminology for Radiology: Ontology Modeling and Analysis , 2008, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[2]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  The Open Biomedical Annotator , 2009, Summit on translational bioinformatics.

[3]  E. Burnside,et al.  Toward best practices in radiology reporting. , 2009, Radiology.

[4]  F M Grieve,et al.  Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective. , 2010, The British journal of radiology.

[5]  Jin Zhang,et al.  Analysis of RadLex Coverage and Term Co-occurrence in Radiology Reporting Templates , 2011, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[6]  Csongor Nyulas,et al.  BioPortal: enhanced functionality via new Web services from the National Center for Biomedical Ontology to access and use ontologies in software applications , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  Curtis P Langlotz,et al.  Structured radiology reporting: are we there yet? , 2009, Radiology.

[8]  Janice C. Honeyman-Buck,et al.  Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  P. Parizel,et al.  The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. , 2011, Radiology.

[10]  H. Hricak,et al.  Improving Communication of Diagnostic Radiology Findings through Structured Reporting 1 , 2011 .

[11]  Steven H. Brown,et al.  Evaluation of the content coverage of SNOMED CT: ability of SNOMED clinical terms to represent clinical problem lists. , 2006, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[12]  David L Weiss,et al.  Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? , 2008, Radiology.

[13]  Charles E. Kahn,et al.  ACCF/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/NASCI/RSNA/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 Health Policy Statement on Structured Reporting in Cardiovascular Imaging. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  C. Langlotz RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.