Cited by 88Radiology practices and educationHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Readability of radiology reports: implications for patient-centered care

Martin-Carreras, Teresa, Cook, Tessa S., Kahn, Charles E.·2019·Clinical Imaging

Abstract

Introduction Radiology reports, although written primarily for healthcare providers, are read increasingly by patients and their family. This study sought to assess the readability of radiology reports.Materials and methods From 108,228 consecutive radiology reports from a large US health system, we excluded duplicate reports, reports of research exams, and reports with missing data. For each report, we measured the numbers of words and sentences, and computed a "reading grade level" (RGL) as the mean of three readability indices: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the effects of modality, patient setting, examination urgency, and combinations thereof on RGL.Results The 97,052 reports in the study cohort had a mean (±standard deviation) of 17.6 ± 12.8 sentences and 203 ± 161 words. Patient setting, modality, and examination urgency all had significant independent effects on RGL (all with p < 0.001). There were 4094 reports (4.2%) at a reading grade level of 8 or lower.Conclusion Radiology reports often contain complex concepts and polysyllabic terms unfamiliar to lay readers. Only 4% of all radiology reports in our sample were readable at the 8th grade level, which is the reading level of the average US adult. Although radiology reports are written for physicians and other healthcare providers, radiologists might explore using simpler, more structured language to address the goals of patient-centered care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.12.006

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin-Carreras, T., Cook, T. S., & Kahn, C. E.
Affiliations
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Martin-Carreras, Teresa
Venue
Clinical Imaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
54
Pages
116-120
ISSN
0899-7071 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2907025287
Cited by
87
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
radiology reports, readability, patient-centered care, lay readers, reading level, plain language, imaging modalities, patient understanding
MeSH terms
Humans, Physicians, Radiography, Radiology, Patient-Centered Care, Comprehension, Health Literacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review