↓ Skip to main content

Prepopulated Radiology Report Templates: A Prospective Analysis of Error Rate and Turnaround Time

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Prepopulated Radiology Report Templates: A Prospective Analysis of Error Rate and Turnaround Time
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10278-012-9455-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. M. Hawkins, S. Hall, J. Hardin, S. Salisbury, A. J. Towbin

Abstract

Current speech recognition software allows exam-specific standard reports to be prepopulated into the dictation field based on the radiology information system procedure code. While it is thought that prepopulating reports can decrease the time required to dictate a study and the overall number of errors in the final report, this hypothesis has not been studied in a clinical setting. A prospective study was performed. During the first week, radiologists dictated all studies using prepopulated standard reports. During the second week, all studies were dictated after prepopulated reports had been disabled. Final radiology reports were evaluated for 11 different types of errors. Each error within a report was classified individually. The median time required to dictate an exam was compared between the 2 weeks. There were 12,387 reports dictated during the study, of which, 1,173 randomly distributed reports were analyzed for errors. There was no difference in the number of errors per report between the 2 weeks; however, radiologists overwhelmingly preferred using a standard report both weeks. Grammatical errors were by far the most common error type, followed by missense errors and errors of omission. There was no significant difference in the median dictation time when comparing studies performed each week. The use of prepopulated reports does not alone affect the error rate or dictation time of radiology reports. While it is a useful feature for radiologists, it must be coupled with other strategies in order to decrease errors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 37 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 44%
Computer Science 6 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 8 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,390,041
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#105
of 1,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,232
of 249,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,092 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.