FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2087815614> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2087815614 endingPage "233" @default.
• W2087815614 startingPage "226" @default.
• W2087815614 abstract "Rationale and Objectives To survey North American radiologists on current practices in structured reporting and language. Materials and Methods An e-mail invitation was sent to the Association of University Radiologists membership (comprising 910 members) to participate in an online survey that addressed development, use, and experience of structured reporting, language, and imaging classification or reporting systems and personal dictation styles. Results Of the 910 members e-mailed, 265 (29.1%) responded, 90.6% of whom were from academic teaching hospitals. There were no significant differences in responses based on group size or region of practice. Of all the respondents, 51.3% come from groups that developed structured reporting for at least half of their reports and only 10.9% for none. A significantly fewer 13% of respondents used rigid unmodifiable structures or checklists rather than adaptable outlines; 59.5% respondents report being satisfied or very satisfied with their structured reports, whereas a significantly fewer 13% report being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Structured reports were reportedly significantly more likely to be required, appreciated, and to decrease errors in departments using many structured reports compared to groups with less widespread use. Conclusions Most academic radiology departments are using or experimenting with structured reports. Although radiologist satisfaction with standardization is significant, there are strong opinions about their limitations and value. Our survey suggests that North American radiologists are invested in exploring structured reporting and will hopefully inform future study on how we define a standard report and how much we can centralize this process. To survey North American radiologists on current practices in structured reporting and language. An e-mail invitation was sent to the Association of University Radiologists membership (comprising 910 members) to participate in an online survey that addressed development, use, and experience of structured reporting, language, and imaging classification or reporting systems and personal dictation styles. Of the 910 members e-mailed, 265 (29.1%) responded, 90.6% of whom were from academic teaching hospitals. There were no significant differences in responses based on group size or region of practice. Of all the respondents, 51.3% come from groups that developed structured reporting for at least half of their reports and only 10.9% for none. A significantly fewer 13% of respondents used rigid unmodifiable structures or checklists rather than adaptable outlines; 59.5% respondents report being satisfied or very satisfied with their structured reports, whereas a significantly fewer 13% report being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Structured reports were reportedly significantly more likely to be required, appreciated, and to decrease errors in departments using many structured reports compared to groups with less widespread use. Most academic radiology departments are using or experimenting with structured reports. Although radiologist satisfaction with standardization is significant, there are strong opinions about their limitations and value. Our survey suggests that North American radiologists are invested in exploring structured reporting and will hopefully inform future study on how we define a standard report and how much we can centralize this process." @default.
• W2087815614 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2087815614 creator A5029411894 @default.
• W2087815614 creator A5033562595 @default.
• W2087815614 date "2015-02-01" @default.
• W2087815614 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2087815614 title "State of Structured Reporting in Radiology, a Survey" @default.
• W2087815614 cites W1983058415 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W1999053269 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2013370169 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2017401287 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2042387032 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2047846130 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2058660727 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2083339896 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2098199815 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2108017642 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2112185199 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2123880001 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2124539070 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2137961864 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2146296749 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2149463929 @default.
• W2087815614 cites W2998155518 @default.
• W2087815614 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.08.014" @default.
• W2087815614 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25442793" @default.
• W2087815614 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2087815614 type Work @default.
• W2087815614 sameAs 2087815614 @default.
• W2087815614 citedByCount "83" @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142015 @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142016 @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142017 @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142018 @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142019 @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142020 @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142021 @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142022 @default.
• W2087815614 countsByYear W20878156142023 @default.
• W2087815614 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2087815614 hasAuthorship W2087815614A5029411894 @default.
• W2087815614 hasAuthorship W2087815614A5033562595 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C188087704 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C2779077324 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C28490314 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C111919701 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C15744967 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C188087704 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C2779077324 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C28490314 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C41008148 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C509550671 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C512399662 @default.
• W2087815614 hasConceptScore W2087815614C71924100 @default.
• W2087815614 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2087815614 hasLocation W20878156141 @default.
• W2087815614 hasLocation W20878156142 @default.
• W2087815614 hasOpenAccess W2087815614 @default.
• W2087815614 hasPrimaryLocation W20878156141 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W1963819606 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W1981116441 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W2364699660 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W2382370855 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W2388145288 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W3029121418 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W3029402136 @default.
• W2087815614 hasRelatedWork W3032604650 @default.
• W2087815614 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W2087815614 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2087815614 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2087815614 magId "2087815614" @default.
• W2087815614 workType "article" @default.