Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography. An Assessment of the Radiology Report

Hani H. Abujudeh, Rathachai Kaewlai, Khashayar Farsad, Esther Orr, Matthew Gilman, Jo Anne O Shepard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale and Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the uncertainty in computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) radiology reports, manifested by descriptions of report limitations and image quality. Materials and methods: CTPA reports between 2004 and 2006 were reviewed for patient demographic data (age, gender, pregnancy state), radiologist data (years of experience, subspecialty, final dictation by an attending radiologist vs a resident being present and dictating the report), the presence of pulmonary embolism (PE), and key words describing examination quality and limitations. Results: There were 2151 CTPA reports. Patterns of reporting CTPA in the impression sections of radiology reports were as follows: (1) PE conclusively positive (10%), (2) PE conclusively negative (29%), (3) PE negative to segmental arteries (27%), (4) PE negative to central pulmonary arteries (21%), (5) PE negative but suboptimal examination (8%), and (6) nondiagnostic examination (5%). Among the last three categories, seven PEs were not initially diagnosed but were found on subsequent imaging examinations. Limitations in image quality, respiratory motion artifact, and contrast enhancement were most frequently mentioned as limitations in image quality (62% and 28% of all reports, respectively). Radiologists tended to report limitations in image quality if they were thoracic radiology subspecialists, had >10 years of experience, or worked independently (P <.001). Conclusion: Different patterns of reporting CTPA exist and vary on the basis of individual radiologists' subspecialties, experience, and whether they work independently or with residents. Certain wording regarding the presence of PE may falsely imply negativity of PE in a limited examination.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1309-1315
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume16
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pulmonary Embolism
Radiology
Lung
Angiography
Computed Tomography Angiography
Artifacts
Pulmonary Artery
Uncertainty
Thorax
Arteries
Demography
Pregnancy
Radiologists

Keywords

  • computed tomographic pulmonary angiography
  • limitations
  • pulmonary embolism
  • Quality of radiology report

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Abujudeh, H. H., Kaewlai, R., Farsad, K., Orr, E., Gilman, M., & Shepard, J. A. O. (2009). Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography. An Assessment of the Radiology Report. Academic Radiology, 16(11), 1309-1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.06.012

Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography. An Assessment of the Radiology Report. / Abujudeh, Hani H.; Kaewlai, Rathachai; Farsad, Khashayar; Orr, Esther; Gilman, Matthew; Shepard, Jo Anne O.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 16, No. 11, 11.2009, p. 1309-1315.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abujudeh, HH, Kaewlai, R, Farsad, K, Orr, E, Gilman, M & Shepard, JAO 2009, 'Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography. An Assessment of the Radiology Report', Academic Radiology, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1309-1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.06.012
Abujudeh, Hani H. ; Kaewlai, Rathachai ; Farsad, Khashayar ; Orr, Esther ; Gilman, Matthew ; Shepard, Jo Anne O. / Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography. An Assessment of the Radiology Report. In: Academic Radiology. 2009 ; Vol. 16, No. 11. pp. 1309-1315.
@article{ad19096e6a0848279c604cc629360257,
title = "Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography. An Assessment of the Radiology Report",
abstract = "Rationale and Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the uncertainty in computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) radiology reports, manifested by descriptions of report limitations and image quality. Materials and methods: CTPA reports between 2004 and 2006 were reviewed for patient demographic data (age, gender, pregnancy state), radiologist data (years of experience, subspecialty, final dictation by an attending radiologist vs a resident being present and dictating the report), the presence of pulmonary embolism (PE), and key words describing examination quality and limitations. Results: There were 2151 CTPA reports. Patterns of reporting CTPA in the impression sections of radiology reports were as follows: (1) PE conclusively positive (10{\%}), (2) PE conclusively negative (29{\%}), (3) PE negative to segmental arteries (27{\%}), (4) PE negative to central pulmonary arteries (21{\%}), (5) PE negative but suboptimal examination (8{\%}), and (6) nondiagnostic examination (5{\%}). Among the last three categories, seven PEs were not initially diagnosed but were found on subsequent imaging examinations. Limitations in image quality, respiratory motion artifact, and contrast enhancement were most frequently mentioned as limitations in image quality (62{\%} and 28{\%} of all reports, respectively). Radiologists tended to report limitations in image quality if they were thoracic radiology subspecialists, had >10 years of experience, or worked independently (P <.001). Conclusion: Different patterns of reporting CTPA exist and vary on the basis of individual radiologists' subspecialties, experience, and whether they work independently or with residents. Certain wording regarding the presence of PE may falsely imply negativity of PE in a limited examination.",
keywords = "computed tomographic pulmonary angiography, limitations, pulmonary embolism, Quality of radiology report",
author = "Abujudeh, {Hani H.} and Rathachai Kaewlai and Khashayar Farsad and Esther Orr and Matthew Gilman and Shepard, {Jo Anne O}",
year = "2009",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2009.06.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "1309--1315",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography. An Assessment of the Radiology Report

AU - Abujudeh, Hani H.

AU - Kaewlai, Rathachai

AU - Farsad, Khashayar

AU - Orr, Esther

AU - Gilman, Matthew

AU - Shepard, Jo Anne O

PY - 2009/11

Y1 - 2009/11

N2 - Rationale and Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the uncertainty in computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) radiology reports, manifested by descriptions of report limitations and image quality. Materials and methods: CTPA reports between 2004 and 2006 were reviewed for patient demographic data (age, gender, pregnancy state), radiologist data (years of experience, subspecialty, final dictation by an attending radiologist vs a resident being present and dictating the report), the presence of pulmonary embolism (PE), and key words describing examination quality and limitations. Results: There were 2151 CTPA reports. Patterns of reporting CTPA in the impression sections of radiology reports were as follows: (1) PE conclusively positive (10%), (2) PE conclusively negative (29%), (3) PE negative to segmental arteries (27%), (4) PE negative to central pulmonary arteries (21%), (5) PE negative but suboptimal examination (8%), and (6) nondiagnostic examination (5%). Among the last three categories, seven PEs were not initially diagnosed but were found on subsequent imaging examinations. Limitations in image quality, respiratory motion artifact, and contrast enhancement were most frequently mentioned as limitations in image quality (62% and 28% of all reports, respectively). Radiologists tended to report limitations in image quality if they were thoracic radiology subspecialists, had >10 years of experience, or worked independently (P <.001). Conclusion: Different patterns of reporting CTPA exist and vary on the basis of individual radiologists' subspecialties, experience, and whether they work independently or with residents. Certain wording regarding the presence of PE may falsely imply negativity of PE in a limited examination.

AB - Rationale and Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the uncertainty in computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) radiology reports, manifested by descriptions of report limitations and image quality. Materials and methods: CTPA reports between 2004 and 2006 were reviewed for patient demographic data (age, gender, pregnancy state), radiologist data (years of experience, subspecialty, final dictation by an attending radiologist vs a resident being present and dictating the report), the presence of pulmonary embolism (PE), and key words describing examination quality and limitations. Results: There were 2151 CTPA reports. Patterns of reporting CTPA in the impression sections of radiology reports were as follows: (1) PE conclusively positive (10%), (2) PE conclusively negative (29%), (3) PE negative to segmental arteries (27%), (4) PE negative to central pulmonary arteries (21%), (5) PE negative but suboptimal examination (8%), and (6) nondiagnostic examination (5%). Among the last three categories, seven PEs were not initially diagnosed but were found on subsequent imaging examinations. Limitations in image quality, respiratory motion artifact, and contrast enhancement were most frequently mentioned as limitations in image quality (62% and 28% of all reports, respectively). Radiologists tended to report limitations in image quality if they were thoracic radiology subspecialists, had >10 years of experience, or worked independently (P <.001). Conclusion: Different patterns of reporting CTPA exist and vary on the basis of individual radiologists' subspecialties, experience, and whether they work independently or with residents. Certain wording regarding the presence of PE may falsely imply negativity of PE in a limited examination.

KW - computed tomographic pulmonary angiography

KW - limitations

KW - pulmonary embolism

KW - Quality of radiology report

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349775511&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349775511&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2009.06.012

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2009.06.012

M3 - Article

C2 - 19692272

AN - SCOPUS:70349775511

VL - 16

SP - 1309

EP - 1315

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 11

ER -