Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2023; 33(02): 144-149
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1762935
Original Article

Impact of Structured Reporting of Skeletal Survey in Skeletal Dysplasia: A Single Institution Experience

Amit Gupta
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Neerja Gupta
2   Department of Genetics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Madhulika Kabra
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Tejinder Kaur
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Pavan Gabra
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Maroof A. Khan
2   Department of Genetics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Manisha Jana
1   Department of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Structured reporting has the advantages of reducing ambiguity in written radiology reports with greater uniformity and comparability of reports amongst different institutes. It has multiple facets: structured format, structured content, and standardized language. While structured reporting initiative has been used in various radiology subspecialties such as oncology, cardiothoracic, abdominal and interventional radiology; skeletal dysplasia is a domain that remains largely untouched by this concept.

Purpose To evaluate the impact of structured reporting in skeletal dysplasia.

Methods and Materials This was an ethically approved pragmatic clinical trial. A defined number (75) of clinically diagnosed and/or genetically confirmed skeletal dysplasia radiographs were evaluated by two radiologists (reader A and reader B) with 5-and 7-years' experience in general radiology, respectively. A pre-defined structured reporting format for skeletal dysplasia was used as an interventional tool. Both the readers interpreted the radiographs before and after the training session. In addition to diagnosis, diagnostic confidence was noted using a semiquantitative scale. Improvement in diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic confidence after training were assessed. McNemar's test was used to assess the statistical significance of difference in proportion of correct diagnoses in pre- and post-education phases. An interrater reliability analysis using the Kappa statistic was performed to determine interobserver agreement between readers both in pre- and post-education phases.

Results In the post-education phase, the proportion of accurate diagnosis improved from 48% (36/75) to 64% (48/75) for reader A, and from 44% (33/75) to 60% (45/75) for reader B as compared with the pre-education phase. Amongst the cases with a correct radiologic diagnosis, an increase in diagnostic confidence was noted in 18 cases for reader A, and 15 cases for reader B. In none of the cases, there was a reduction in diagnostic confidence after training. A McNemar's test determined that there was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of correct diagnoses in pre- and post-education phases, p < 0.001. The interobserver agreement between the readers was found to increase from Kappa = 0.33 (p = 0.004) using non-structured reporting in pre-education phase to Kappa = 0.46 (p < 0.001) using structured reporting in the post-education phase.

Conclusion A structured reporting of skeletal survey can improve accuracy and confidence in diagnosing skeletal dysplasia.

Keywords

skeletal dysplasia - structured reporting - skeletal survey

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
04 March 2023

© 2023. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 European Society of Radiology (ESR).. ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging 2018; 9 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Goldberg-Stein S, Chernyak V. Adding value in radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2019; 16 (9 Pt B): 1292-1298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shea LAG, Towbin AJ. The state of structured reporting: the nuance of standardized language. Pediatr Radiol 2019; 49 (04) 500-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Warman ML, Cormier-Daire V, Hall C. et al. Nosology and classification of genetic skeletal disorders: 2010 revision. Am J Med Genet A 2011; 155A (05) 943-968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Larson DB, Towbin AJ, Pryor RM, Donnelly LF. Improving consistency in radiology reporting through the use of department-wide standardized structured reporting. Radiology 2013; 267 (01) 240-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar