Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging
Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Boar...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Marcal, Leonardo P. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Abdominal radiology - [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016, 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:40 ; year:2015 ; number:7 ; day:24 ; month:04 ; pages:2391-2397 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR003195953 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR003195953 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230519175133.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201001s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR003195953 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Marcal, Leonardo P. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 | ||
| 520 | |a Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Structured reporting |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Pancreatic cancer staging |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Pancreatic cancer CT |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fox, Patricia S. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Evans, Douglas B. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fleming, Jason B. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Varadhachary, Gauri R. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Katz, Matthew H. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tamm, Eric P. |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Abdominal radiology |d [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 |g 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 |w (DE-627)847023133 |w (DE-600)2845742-0 |x 2366-0058 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:40 |g year:2015 |g number:7 |g day:24 |g month:04 |g pages:2391-2397 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_150 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 40 |j 2015 |e 7 |b 24 |c 04 |h 2391-2397 | ||
| author_variant |
l p m lp lpm p s f ps psf d b e db dbe j b f jb jbf g r v gr grv m h k mh mhk e p t ep ept |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:23660058:2015----::nlssfreomailgdcainfropeeesncaiyop |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 doi (DE-627)SPR003195953 (SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Marcal, Leonardo P. verfasserin aut Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. Structured reporting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer staging (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer CT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fox, Patricia S. aut Evans, Douglas B. aut Fleming, Jason B. aut Varadhachary, Gauri R. aut Katz, Matthew H. aut Tamm, Eric P. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2015 number:7 day:24 month:04 pages:2391-2397 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 AR 40 2015 7 24 04 2391-2397 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 doi (DE-627)SPR003195953 (SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Marcal, Leonardo P. verfasserin aut Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. Structured reporting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer staging (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer CT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fox, Patricia S. aut Evans, Douglas B. aut Fleming, Jason B. aut Varadhachary, Gauri R. aut Katz, Matthew H. aut Tamm, Eric P. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2015 number:7 day:24 month:04 pages:2391-2397 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 AR 40 2015 7 24 04 2391-2397 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 doi (DE-627)SPR003195953 (SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Marcal, Leonardo P. verfasserin aut Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. Structured reporting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer staging (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer CT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fox, Patricia S. aut Evans, Douglas B. aut Fleming, Jason B. aut Varadhachary, Gauri R. aut Katz, Matthew H. aut Tamm, Eric P. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2015 number:7 day:24 month:04 pages:2391-2397 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 AR 40 2015 7 24 04 2391-2397 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 doi (DE-627)SPR003195953 (SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Marcal, Leonardo P. verfasserin aut Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. Structured reporting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer staging (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer CT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fox, Patricia S. aut Evans, Douglas B. aut Fleming, Jason B. aut Varadhachary, Gauri R. aut Katz, Matthew H. aut Tamm, Eric P. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2015 number:7 day:24 month:04 pages:2391-2397 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 AR 40 2015 7 24 04 2391-2397 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 doi (DE-627)SPR003195953 (SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Marcal, Leonardo P. verfasserin aut Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. Structured reporting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer staging (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer CT (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fox, Patricia S. aut Evans, Douglas B. aut Fleming, Jason B. aut Varadhachary, Gauri R. aut Katz, Matthew H. aut Tamm, Eric P. aut Enthalten in Abdominal radiology [Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 (DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 2366-0058 nnns volume:40 year:2015 number:7 day:24 month:04 pages:2391-2397 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 AR 40 2015 7 24 04 2391-2397 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Abdominal radiology 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 volume:40 year:2015 number:7 day:24 month:04 pages:2391-2397 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Abdominal radiology 40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397 volume:40 year:2015 number:7 day:24 month:04 pages:2391-2397 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Structured reporting Pancreatic cancer staging Pancreatic cancer CT |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Abdominal radiology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Marcal, Leonardo P. @@aut@@ Fox, Patricia S. @@aut@@ Evans, Douglas B. @@aut@@ Fleming, Jason B. @@aut@@ Varadhachary, Gauri R. @@aut@@ Katz, Matthew H. @@aut@@ Tamm, Eric P. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-04-24T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
847023133 |
| id |
SPR003195953 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR003195953</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519175133.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR003195953</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marcal, Leonardo P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Structured reporting</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pancreatic cancer staging</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pancreatic cancer CT</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fox, Patricia S.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Evans, Douglas B.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fleming, Jason B.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Varadhachary, Gauri R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Katz, Matthew H.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tamm, Eric P.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Abdominal radiology</subfield><subfield code="d">[Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)847023133</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2845742-0</subfield><subfield code="x">2366-0058</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:40</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:7</subfield><subfield code="g">day:24</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2391-2397</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">40</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">7</subfield><subfield code="b">24</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield><subfield code="h">2391-2397</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Marcal, Leonardo P. |
| spellingShingle |
Marcal, Leonardo P. misc Structured reporting misc Pancreatic cancer staging misc Pancreatic cancer CT Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging |
| authorStr |
Marcal, Leonardo P. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)847023133 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2366-0058 |
| topic_title |
Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging Structured reporting (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer staging (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pancreatic cancer CT (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Structured reporting misc Pancreatic cancer staging misc Pancreatic cancer CT |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Structured reporting misc Pancreatic cancer staging misc Pancreatic cancer CT |
| topic_browse |
misc Structured reporting misc Pancreatic cancer staging misc Pancreatic cancer CT |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Abdominal radiology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
847023133 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Abdominal radiology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)847023133 (DE-600)2845742-0 |
| title |
Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR003195953 (SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e |
| title_full |
Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging |
| author_sort |
Marcal, Leonardo P. |
| journal |
Abdominal radiology |
| journalStr |
Abdominal radiology |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
2391 |
| author_browse |
Marcal, Leonardo P. Fox, Patricia S. Evans, Douglas B. Fleming, Jason B. Varadhachary, Gauri R. Katz, Matthew H. Tamm, Eric P. |
| container_volume |
40 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Marcal, Leonardo P. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 |
| title_sort |
analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging |
| title_auth |
Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging |
| abstract |
Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 |
| abstractGer |
Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports. © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_150 |
| container_issue |
7 |
| title_short |
Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Fox, Patricia S. Evans, Douglas B. Fleming, Jason B. Varadhachary, Gauri R. Katz, Matthew H. Tamm, Eric P. |
| author2Str |
Fox, Patricia S. Evans, Douglas B. Fleming, Jason B. Varadhachary, Gauri R. Katz, Matthew H. Tamm, Eric P. |
| ppnlink |
847023133 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T17:54:39.282Z |
| _version_ |
1803581421555548160 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR003195953</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519175133.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR003195953</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00261-015-0420-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marcal, Leonardo P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose To assess the completeness and clarity of current free-form radiology reports for pancreatic cancer staging by evaluating them against the elements of the RSNA CT oncology primary pancreas mass dictation template. Methods This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB). 295 free-form computed tomography (CT) reports for baseline staging of pancreatic cancer (PC) generated between August 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated by one of two radiologists with expertise in pancreatic cancer imaging. Reports which indicated that metastatic disease was present were excluded. The completeness and clarity of the reports were analyzed against the elements of the RSNA CT pancreas mass dictation template. Fisher’s exact tests were used to analyze differences by year and type of radiologist. Results Primary lesion location, size, and effect on bile duct (BD) were provided in 93.9% (277/295), 69.8% (206/295), and 67.5% (199/295) of reports, respectively. Standard terms to describe vascular involvement were used in 47.5% (140/295) of reports. In 20.3% (60/295), the resectability status could not be defined based on the report alone. In 36.9% (109/295) of reports, review of CT images was necessary to understand vascular involvement. Radiologists expert in pancreatic oncology had a higher proportion of reports using standardized terminology and reports in which vascular involvement was understood without revisiting the images. Conclusions Free-form reports were more likely to use ambiguous terminology and/or require review of the actual images for understanding resectability status. The use of a standardized reporting template may improve the usefulness of pancreatic cancer staging reports.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Structured reporting</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pancreatic cancer staging</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pancreatic cancer CT</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fox, Patricia S.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Evans, Douglas B.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fleming, Jason B.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Varadhachary, Gauri R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Katz, Matthew H.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tamm, Eric P.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Abdominal radiology</subfield><subfield code="d">[Boston, MA] : Springer US, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">40(2015), 7 vom: 24. Apr., Seite 2391-2397</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)847023133</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2845742-0</subfield><subfield code="x">2366-0058</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:40</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:7</subfield><subfield code="g">day:24</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2391-2397</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0420-1</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">40</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">7</subfield><subfield code="b">24</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield><subfield code="h">2391-2397</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399441 |