Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 247

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Radiology Reports: Examining Radiologist and Clinician Preferences Regarding Style and Content

Naik, Sandeep S., Hanbidge, Anthony, Wilson, Stephanie R.·2001·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) frequently includes the option of computer-generated itemized reports. This motivated us to reassess the merits of traditional prose dictated reports. This study examines radiologist and clinician preferences regarding report style and content. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in two parts. The first part was a retrospective audit of existing medical imaging prose reports to determine their content. The second part comprised a questionnaire containing three mock clinical scenarios. Three pairs of reports were provided for each scenario, with only essential information in the first pair, some optional information in the second, and the most complete report in the third. Each pair consisted of a prose and itemized report with identical content. Participants ranked reports by preference and were asked specific questions regarding report content. The questionnaires were mailed to referring clinicians and administered during an interactive forum to staff radiologists, radiology fellows, and radiology residents. RESULTS: The audit of existing reports showed a wide variation in all fields with consistency limited to a given radiologist. Responses to the questionnaire showed that, in general, a majority of radiologists and referring clinicians preferred itemized reports. The itemized report with the most detailed content was ranked highest of all three scenarios. CONCLUSION: Prose reports foster a lack of standardization of content among different radiologists. Itemized reports facilitate complete documentation of information and measurements and are more popular with both radiologists and referring clinicians.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760591

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 247

Metadata

Authors
Naik, S. S., Hanbidge, A., & Wilson, S. R.
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
2001-03
Volume
176
Issue
3
Pages
591-598
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W2069778477
Cited by
247
References
0
FWCI
3.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radiology Reports: Examining Radiologist and Clinician Preferences Regarding Style and Content. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760591
The paper
Naik, S. S., Hanbidge, A., & Wilson, S. R. (2001). Radiology Reports: Examining Radiologist and Clinician Preferences Regarding Style and Content. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760591

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.