TY  - JOUR
A1  - Ernst, Benjamin P.
A1  - Hodeib, Mohamed
A1  - Strieth, Sebastian
A1  - Künzel, Julian
A1  - Bischof, Fabian
A1  - Hackenberg, Berit
A1  - Huppertz, Tilmann
A1  - Weber, Veronika
A1  - Bahr, Katharina
A1  - Eckrich, Jonas
A1  - Hagemann, Jan
A1  - Engelbarts, Matthias
A1  - Fröhlich, Matthias F.
A1  - Solbach, Philipp
A1  - Linke, Richard
A1  - Matthias, Christoph
A1  - Sommer, Wieland H.
A1  - Becker, Sven
T1  - Structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations
T2  - BMC Medical Imaging
N2  - Background: Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner’s individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations.
Methods: Both standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss’ kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI).
Results: By comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs’ completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ kappa 0.92).
Conclusions: As compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.
KW  - Structured reporting
KW  - Ultrasonography
KW  - Head and neck Cancer
KW  - Salivary gland diseases
KW  - Lymphadenopathy
Y1  - 2019
UR  - http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/56068
UR  - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-560687
SN  - 1471-2342
VL  - 19
IS  - 25
PB  - BioMed Central
CY  - London
ER  -