Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 17, 2026
A Pipeline for 3D Multimodality Image Integration and Computer-assisted Planning in Epilepsy Surgery
Published on: May 20, 2016
Comparing Preliminary and Final Neuroradiology Reports: What Factors Determine the Differences?
K Stankiewicz1, M Cohen1, M Carone2
1From The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences (K.S., M. Cohen, G.S., P.G.N., J.S.L., D.M.Y., L.S.B.), Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland.
Background And Purpose:
Trainees' interpretations of neuroradiologic studies are finalized by faculty neuroradiologists. We aimed to identify the factors that determine the degree to which the preliminary reports are modified.
Materials And Methods:
The character length of the preliminary and final reports and the percentage character change between the 2 reports were determined for neuroradiology reports composed during November 2012 to October 2013. Examination time, critical finding flag, missed critical finding flag, trainee level, faculty experience, imaging technique, and native-versus-non-native speaker status of the reader were collected. Multivariable linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between mean percentage character change and the various factors.
Results:
Of 34,661 reports, 2322 (6.7%) were read by radiology residents year 1; 4429 (12.8%), by radiology residents year 2; 3663 (10.6%), by radiology residents year 3; 2249 (6.5%), by radiology residents year 4; and 21,998 (63.5%), by fellows. The overall mean percentage character change was 14.8% (range, 0%-701.8%; median, 6.6%). Mean percentage character change increased for a missed critical finding (+41.6%, P < .0001), critical finding flag (+1.8%, P < .001), MR imaging studies (+3.6%, P < .001), and non-native trainees (+4.2%, P = .018). Compared with radiology residents year 1, radiology residents year 2 (-5.4%, P = .002), radiology residents year 3 (-5.9%, P = .002), radiology residents year 4 (-8.2%, P < .001), and fellows (-8.7%; P < .001) had a decreased mean percentage character change. Senior faculty had a lower mean percentage character change (-6.88%, P < .001). Examination time and non-native faculty did not affect mean percentage character change.
Conclusions:
A missed critical finding, critical finding flag, MR imaging technique, trainee level, faculty experience level, and non-native-trainee status are associated with a higher degree of modification of a preliminary report. Understanding the factors that influence the extent of report revisions could improve the quality of report generation and trainee education.
