Document Type

Article

Publication Date

3-2016

Comments

This article has been peer reviewed. It is the authors' final version prior to publication in Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volume 13, Issue 3, March 2016, Pages 307-309.

The published version is available at dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.12.016. Copyright © Elsevier Inc.

Abstract

Introduction:

The field of diagnostic radiology continues to struggle with the clinical adoption of the structured interpretive report, with many radiologists preferring a semistructured, free-text dictation style to a more rigid, highly structured approach that some professional leaders have promoted [1]. Although structured reporting compliance in the radiologist community has been difficult to achieve, diagnostic radiologists have been thinking about and discussing this important issue for many years; it is also a part of the ACR’s Imaging 3.0_ campaign [2]. In the breast imaging community, the well-established BI-RADS_ recommendations produce a very structured report, with a discussion of interpretive findings culminating in a numeric BI-RADS score ranging from 0 to 6 [3]. Unlike some interpretive radiology reports, which can be ambiguous in terms of the next course of action, the BI-RADS scale is not only a diagnostic scale but also prescriptive of what the necessary follow-up should be.

Download

Included in

Radiology Commons

Share

COinS