Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys

Jan Bosmans UGent, Joost J Weyler, Arthur M De Schepper and Paul M Parizel (2011) RADIOLOGY. 259(1). p.184-195
abstract
Purpose: To investigate and compare the opinions and expectations regarding the radiology report of radiologists and referring clinicians and to identify trends, discordance, and discontent. Materials and Methods: A total of 3884 clinicians and 292 radiologists were invited by e-mail to participate in two internet surveys, COVER (for clinical specialists and general practitioners) and ROVER (for radiologists). Respondents were asked to state their level of agreement with 46 statements according to a Likert scale. Dichotomized results were compared by using the χ(2) statistic. Results: Eight hundred seventy-three completed forms were prepared for analysis, corresponding to a response rate of 21%. Most clinicians declared themselves satisfied with the radiology report. A large majority considered it an indispensable tool and accepted that the radiologist is the best person to interpret the images. Nearly all agreed that they need to provide adequate clinical information and state clearly what clinical question they want to have answered. Itemized reporting was preferred for complex examinations by both the clinicians and the radiologists. A majority in both groups were convinced that learning to report needs to be taught in a structured way. Conclusion: The surveys emphasize the role of the radiologist as a well-informed medical imaging specialist; however, some of the preferences of radiologists and clinicians diverge fundamentally from the way radiology is practiced and taught today, and implementing these preferences may have far-reaching consequences.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
PHYSICIANS, LANGUAGE, INFORMATION, CT, RESIDENTS, INSTRUCTION, HISTORY, TEXT
journal title
RADIOLOGY
Radiology
volume
259
issue
1
pages
184 - 195
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000288848800023
JCR category
RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
JCR impact factor
5.726 (2011)
JCR rank
5/116 (2011)
JCR quartile
1 (2011)
ISSN
0033-8419
DOI
10.1148/radiol.10101045
language
English
UGent publication?
no
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
1123208
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-1123208
date created
2011-02-03 11:43:11
date last changed
2012-08-07 09:35:21
@article{1123208,
  abstract     = {Purpose: To investigate and compare the opinions and expectations regarding the radiology report of radiologists and referring clinicians and to identify trends, discordance, and discontent. Materials and Methods: A total of 3884 clinicians and 292 radiologists were invited by e-mail to participate in two internet surveys, COVER (for clinical specialists and general practitioners) and ROVER (for radiologists). Respondents were asked to state their level of agreement with 46 statements according to a Likert scale. Dichotomized results were compared by using the \ensuremath{\chi}(2) statistic. Results: Eight hundred seventy-three completed forms were prepared for analysis, corresponding to a response rate of 21\%. Most clinicians declared themselves satisfied with the radiology report. A large majority considered it an indispensable tool and accepted that the radiologist is the best person to interpret the images. Nearly all agreed that they need to provide adequate clinical information and state clearly what clinical question they want to have answered. Itemized reporting was preferred for complex examinations by both the clinicians and the radiologists. A majority in both groups were convinced that learning to report needs to be taught in a structured way. Conclusion: The surveys emphasize the role of the radiologist as a well-informed medical imaging specialist; however, some of the preferences of radiologists and clinicians diverge fundamentally from the way radiology is practiced and taught today, and implementing these preferences may have far-reaching consequences.},
  author       = {Bosmans, Jan and Weyler, Joost J and De Schepper, Arthur M and Parizel, Paul M},
  issn         = {0033-8419},
  journal      = {RADIOLOGY},
  keyword      = {PHYSICIANS,LANGUAGE,INFORMATION,CT,RESIDENTS,INSTRUCTION,HISTORY,TEXT},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {184--195},
  title        = {The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101045},
  volume       = {259},
  year         = {2011},
}

Chicago
BOSMANS, JAN, Joost J Weyler, Arthur M De Schepper, and Paul M Parizel. 2011. “The Radiology Report as Seen by Radiologists and Referring Clinicians: Results of the COVER and ROVER Surveys.” Radiology 259 (1): 184–195.
APA
BOSMANS, J., Weyler, J. J., De Schepper, A. M., & Parizel, P. M. (2011). The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. RADIOLOGY, 259(1), 184–195.
Vancouver
1.
BOSMANS J, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM. The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. RADIOLOGY. 2011;259(1):184–95.
MLA
BOSMANS, JAN, Joost J Weyler, Arthur M De Schepper, et al. “The Radiology Report as Seen by Radiologists and Referring Clinicians: Results of the COVER and ROVER Surveys.” RADIOLOGY 259.1 (2011): 184–195. Print.