| Title |
Conversion of Radiology Reporting Templates to the MRRT Standard
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-015-9787-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles E. Kahn, Brad Genereaux, Curtis P. Langlotz |
| Abstract |
In 2013, the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) Radiology workgroup developed the Management of Radiology Report Templates (MRRT) profile, which defines both the format of radiology reporting templates using an extension of Hypertext Markup Language version 5 (HTML5), and the transportation mechanism to query, retrieve, and store these templates. Of 200 English-language report templates published by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), initially encoded as text and in an XML schema language, 168 have been converted successfully into MRRT using a combination of automated processes and manual editing; conversion of the remaining 32 templates is in progress. The automated conversion process applied Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformation (XSLT) scripts, an XML parsing engine, and a Java servlet. The templates were validated for proper HTML5 and MRRT syntax using web-based services. The MRRT templates allow radiologists to share best-practice templates across organizations and have been uploaded to the template library to supersede the prior XML-format templates. By using MRRT transactions and MRRT-format templates, radiologists will be able to directly import and apply templates from the RSNA Report Template Library in their own MRRT-compatible vendor systems. The availability of MRRT-format reporting templates will stimulate adoption of the MRRT standard and is expected to advance the sharing and use of templates to improve the quality of radiology reports. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 55% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 44% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 13% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 20 October 2015.
All research outputs
#1,884,591
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#43
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,285
of 286,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 286,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.