Dentomaksillofasiyal ve Medikal Radyologların Raporlamayla İlgili Uygulamaları

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 1, 32 - 39, 24.04.2018

İlkay Peker Ozlem Üçok Aylin Kayadüğün

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.359037

Öz

Amaç:  Radyolojik raporlama dentomaksillofasiyal
radyoloji için görece yeni ve ilgi çekici bir konudur, oysa medikal radyolojide
uzun yıllardan beri yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, dentomaksillofasiyal ve
medikal radyologların radyolojik raporlama ile ilgili uygulamalarını
karşılaştırmaktır.

Materyal ve
Metot: Dentomaksillofasiyal ve medikal radyologlar çalışmaya e-posta ile davet
edildi. Katılımcılar kendi radyoloji raporlarıyla özellikleriyle ilgili
sorulardan oluşan bir anketi doldurdular. 
Çalışma, dentomaksillofasiyal ve medikal radyologlar olmak üzere iki
bağımsız gruptan oluşmaktaydı. Bu iki bağımsız grup için Mann-Whitney U testi
yapıldı.

Bulgular: Toplam 285 radyolog (115
dentomaksillofasiyal ve 170 medikal radyolog) çalışmaya katıldı. Hem
dentomaksillofasiyal (%53.9) hem de medikal radyologlar (%77) tarafından
çoğunlukla yapılandırılmış radyolojik raporlar tercih edilmekteydi, fakat iki
grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunamadı (p<0.05). Dentomaksillofasiyal
(%79.1) ve medikal radyologlar (%81.2) çoğunlukla kendi raporlarının klinik
bilgi, bulgular ve sonuç olmak üzere ayrı başlıklardan oluştuğunu belirtmekle
birlikte, iki grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark vardı
(p<0.05). Dentomaksillofasiyal (%99.1) ve medikal radyologların (%99.4)
büyük çoğunluğu radyoloji eğitim programlarının radyoloji raporu yorumlamasını
da kapsaması gerektiği konusunda hemfikirdi.

Sonuç: Bu çalışma
dentomaksillofasiyal radyologların raporlama uygulamalarıyla ilgili ilk
çalışmadır. İyi radyolojik raporlama yapmak dentomaksillofasiyal radyologlar
için görece olarak yeni bir görevdir. Bu çalışma dentomaksillofasiyal ve
medikal radyologların radyolojik raporlama ile ilgili uygulamalarının benzer
olduğunu gösterdi

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tıp Eğitimi, Radyoloji, Diş Hekimliği, Tıp, Anket

Approaches of dentomaxillofacial and medical radiologists about reporting

Öz

Objectives: Radiological reporting is
a relatively new and challenging issue in dentomaxillofacial radiology, whereas
it has been performed so many years in medical radiology. The purpose of
this study is to compare approaches of dentomaxillofacial and medical
radiologists regarding radiology reporting. 

Materials
and Methods: Dentomaxillofacial and medical radiologists were invited by e-mail. The
participants filled a survey regarding the features of their own radiology
reports. The study was based on two independent groups (dentomaxillofacial and
medical radiologists). Mann-Whitney U test was used for two independent groups.

Results: 285 radiologists in total
(115 dentomaxillofacial and 170 medical radiologists) participated in this
survey. Structured radiologic reports were mostly preferred by both
dentomaxillofacial (53.9%) and medical radiologists (77%), but statistically
significant difference was found between two groups (p<0.05). Although dentomaxillofacial
(79.1%) and medical (81.2%) radiologists mostly reported that their own reports
consisted of separate headings as clinical information, findings and
conclusion, there was a statistically significant difference between two groups
(p<0.05). The majority of dentomaxillofacial (99.1%) and medical (99.4%)
radiologists agreed regarding radiology training programs should include
radiology report construction.

Conclusion:
This is the first study pointing out the approaches of dentomaxillofacial
radiologists about reporting. Good radiological reporting is a relatively new
task for dentomaxillofacial radiologists compared to medical radiologists. This
study showed that the approaches of dentomaxillofacial and medical radiologists
were similar regarding radiological reports.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Medical Education, Radiology, Dentistry, Medicine, Survey

Kaynakça

• References 1. Turkish Society of Radiology Qualification Board, Standards and Guide Committee, Traditional Radiology Report Written Guideline Document No. 001; 2008.
• 2. Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES, Carrino JA, Channin DS, et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 2009; 252: 852–856. 3. Summers JB, Kaminski J. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. Acad Radiol 2004; 11: 1197.
• 4. Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist’s perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: 313–319.
• 5. Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, Parizel PM. Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72: 354-358.
• 6. Johnson AJ. Radiology report quality: a cohort study of point-and-click structured reporting versus conventional dictation. Acad 
Radiol 2002; 9: 1056–1061.
• 7. Hobby JL, Tom BD, Todd C, Dixon AK. Communication of doubt and certainty in radiological reports. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 999–1001.
• 8. Iyer VR, Hahn PF, Blaszkowsky LS, Thayer SP, Halpern EF, Harisinghani MG. Added value of selected images embedded into radiology reports to referring clinicians. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 205–210.
• 9. Reiner B, Siegel E. Radiology reporting: returning to our image-centric roots. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 1151–1155.
• 10. Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B. Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 2009; 253: 74–80.
• 11. Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH. Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 2009; 64: 386–396.
• 12. Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM. The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians. Results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 2011; 259: 184–195.
• 13. Ucok O. The importance of reporting in oral and maxillofacial radiology. J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 2015; 3: 31-32.
• 14. European Society of Radiology (ESR). Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 2011; 2: 93-96.
• 15. Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP. The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5: 626–629.
• 16. Srinivasa Babu A, Brooks ML. The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. Radiographics 2015; 35: 547-554.
• 17. Powell DK, Silberzweig JE. State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey. Acad Radiol 2015; 22: 226-233.
• 18. Sistrom C, Lanier L, Mancuso A. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. Acad Radiol 2004; 11: 76-84.
• 19. Steele JL, Nyce JM, Williamson KB, Gunderman RB. Learning to report. Acad Radiol 2002; 9: 817–820.
• 20. diagnostic imaging. (homepage on the internet). Howl-Whitney LJ. Radiology reports: are structured systems the answer? RSNA 2013, Diagnostic Imaging, Practice Management [updated December 2013]. Available from: http://www.diagnostic imaging.com/rsna-2013/radiology-reports-are-structured-systems- answer?
• 21. Lam CZ, Nguyen HN, Ferguson EC. Radiology resident' satisfaction with their training and education in the United States: effect of program directors, teaching faculty, and other factors on program success. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206: 907-916.
• 22. Sistrom CL, Langlotz CP. A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: 159–167.
• 23. Alan O, Savcı G. Preferences of radiologists, clinicians and patients in informing of patients about radiological reports.
Survey study. PhD, Uludag University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Bursa, Turkey, 2012.