Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Readability of the radiologic report.

A E Sierra1, M A Bisesi, T L Rosenbaum

  • 1Department of Radiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824.

Investigative Radiology
|March 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Cortical activation during rhythmic hand movements performed under three types of control: an fMRI study.

Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience·2003
Same author

Measuring performance in chest radiography.

Radiology·2000
Same author

Prospects for progress in diagnostic imaging.

Journal of internal medicine·2000
Same author

Reflections on the early years of nuclear medicine.

Radiology·2000
Same author

The Medical Image Perception Society and the future of imaging research.

Radiology·1998
Same author

Different effects of exercise and edema on T2 relaxation in skeletal muscle.

Magnetic resonance in medicine·1997
Same journal

Vessel Wall Imaging in 1.5 T MRI Using Deep Learning Reconstruction: Prospective Evaluation of Interchangeability With Standard 3 T MRI.

Investigative radiology·2026
Same journal

Accelerated Deep-Learning-Based Image Reconstruction for 3D T2 Dark-Fluid in Imaging of Multiple Sclerosis.

Investigative radiology·2026
Same journal

3D Freehand Ultrasound Imaging of Optic Nerve Sheath.

Investigative radiology·2026
Same journal

Iodinated Contrast Media Hypersensitivity in 115,966 Patients: Risk Factors, Severity Profiles, and the Impact of Iodine Concentration on Reaction Risk.

Investigative radiology·2026
Same journal

Improvement of Lung Nodule Volumetric Accuracy with Photon-counting Computed Tomography Over Energy-integrating Computed Tomography in Low-dose Screening: A Phantom Study.

Investigative radiology·2026
Same journal

Photon-counting CT in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Improved Metal Artifact Reduction and Impact on Bone Fusion Assessment.

Investigative radiology·2026
See all related articles

Radiographic report readability varies by radiologist and imaging modality, with complex reports negatively impacting clarity and certainty. This linguistic complexity can hinder effective communication between radiologists and clinicians.

Area of Science:

  • Radiology
  • Medical Communication
  • Linguistic Analysis

Background:

  • Assessing the linguistic complexity of radiographic reports is crucial for effective clinical communication.
  • Previous studies have not objectively quantified readability differences across modalities and individual radiologists.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To objectively evaluate the linguistic complexity of radiographic reports using readability analysis.
  • To determine if complexity varies between radiologists and imaging modalities (general radiography, mammography, ultrasound, MRI).
  • To assess the impact of report readability on clinician perception of clarity and certainty.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective analysis of 10,361 radiographic reports dictated in 1989.
  • Utilized a commercial writing evaluation program to calculate the Flesch-Kincaid readability index.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Conducted a two-way analysis of variance to compare readability by radiologist and modality.
  • Surveyed 40 family practitioners on report clarity and radiologist certainty.

    • Main Results:

    • Average readability index was higher for mammography and MRI compared to ultrasound and general radiography.
    • Significant differences in readability were observed between individual radiologists and modalities (F = 18.6, P < .001).
    • Strong negative correlations found between readability and perceived clarity (r = -0.63, P < .001) and certainty (r = -0.58, P < .001).

    Conclusions:

    • Linguistic complexity of radiographic reports differs significantly among radiologists and imaging modalities.
    • Higher readability indices correlate with lower perceived clarity and certainty by clinicians.
    • Complex sentence structures in reports may impede effective communication between radiologists and referring physicians.