Structured MRI reporting increases completeness of radiological reports and requesting physicians' satisfaction in the diagnostic workup for pelvic endometriosis

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_BARBISAN_Structured_MRI_reporting_increases_completeness_of_radiological_reports_2021.PDF (941.13 KB)
Citações na Scopus
5
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER
Autores
BARBISAN, Cinthia Callegari
TORRES, Lucas R.
LIBANIO, Bruna B.
TORRES, Ulysses S.
D'IPPOLITO, Giuseppe
RACY, Douglas J.
Citação
ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, v.46, n.7, p.3342-3353, 2021
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Purpose MRI plays an important role in the diagnosis and surgical planning of pelvic endometriosis (PE), and imaging reports should contain all relevant information (completeness). As structured reports are being increasingly utilized, we aimed to evaluate whether structured MRI reporting increases the quality of reports regarding completeness and, consequently, their perceived value by gynecologists, in comparison to free-text reports. We also aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of both formats. Methods We retrospectively included 28 consecutive women with histologically proven PE who underwent MRI within one month before surgery. Two abdominal radiologists (Rd1/Rd2, 3y/12y experience), blinded to clinical and surgical data, individually elaborated free-text reports and, four months later, structured reports. Completeness (defined as description of six key anatomical sites deemed essential for surgical planning in a consensus of four-blinded external experts) and diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) by site (histology as reference) were compared between reports using the McNemar test. The satisfaction of gynecologists was compared using the marginal homogeneity test. Results Structured reporting increased completeness for both Rd1 (rectosigmoid, retrocervical/uterosacral ligament, vagina, and ureter) and Rd2 (vagina, ureter, and bladder) (p < 0.05), without compromising sensitivity or specificity at any of the evaluated sites. Gynecologists' satisfaction was superior with structured reports in most comparisons. Conclusion Structured MRI reports perform better in fully documenting essential features of PE and are similar in terms of diagnostic performance, therefore having higher potential for surgical planning. Gynecologists found them easier to assess and were more satisfied with the information provided by structured reports.
Palavras-chave
Pelvic endometriosis, Structured report, Quality, Magnetic resonance imaging, Diagnostic performance
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/41504
Referências
  1. Abrao MS, 2007, HUM REPROD, V22, P3092, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dem187
  2. Adamson GD, 2010, J ENDOMETR PELVIC PA, V2, P3, DOI 10.1177/228402651000200102
  3. Agostini Thais Coura Figueiredo, 2020, Radiol Bras, V53, P329, DOI 10.1590/0100-3984.2019.0037
  4. Alborzi S, 2018, MEDICINE, V97, DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000009536
  5. Alessandrino F, 2019, RADIOL MED, V124, P628, DOI 10.1007/s11547-019-01012-0
  6. Bazot M, 2017, EUR RADIOL, V27, P2765, DOI 10.1007/s00330-016-4673-z
  7. Bazot M, 2017, FERTIL STERIL, V108, P886, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.026
  8. Brook OR, 2015, RADIOLOGY, V274, P464, DOI 10.1148/radiol.14140206
  9. Moura APC, 2019, PLOS ONE, V14, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0214842
  10. Chamie LP, 2011, RADIOGRAPHICS, V31, pE77, DOI 10.1148/rg.314105193
  11. CORNILLIE FJ, 1990, FERTIL STERIL, V53, P978
  12. Coutinho A, 2011, RADIOGRAPHICS, V31, P549, DOI 10.1148/rg.312105144
  13. Goncalves MOD, 2010, HUM REPROD, V25, P665, DOI 10.1093/humrep/dep433
  14. Dunnick N Reed, 2008, J Am Coll Radiol, V5, P626, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.12.015
  15. Ederveen JC, 2020, EUR RADIOL, V30, P3448, DOI 10.1007/s00330-020-06688-x
  16. Ernst BP, 2019, BMC MED EDUC, V19, DOI 10.1186/s12909-019-1538-6
  17. ESR, 2011, INSIGHTS IMAGING, V2, P93, DOI 10.1007/s13244-011-0066-7
  18. Feldman MK, 2020, ABDOM RADIOL, V45, P1608, DOI 10.1007/s00261-019-02182-1
  19. Franconeri A, 2018, EUR RADIOL, V28, P3009, DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-5161-9
  20. Ganeshan D, 2018, ACAD RADIOL, V25, P66, DOI 10.1016/j.acra.2017.08.005
  21. Jaramillo-Cardoso A, 2020, ABDOM RADIOL, V45, P1623, DOI 10.1007/s00261-019-02199-6
  22. Johnson Annette J, 2004, J Am Coll Radiol, V1, P497, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.02.019
  23. Kahn CE, 2009, RADIOLOGY, V252, P852, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2523081992
  24. Kambadakone AR, 2018, ABDOM RADIOL, V43, P245, DOI 10.1007/s00261-017-1433-8
  25. Kinkel K, 1999, HUM REPROD, V14, P1080, DOI 10.1093/humrep/14.4.1080
  26. Larson DB, 2018, RADIOGRAPHICS, V38, P1705, DOI 10.1148/rg.2018180040
  27. Lin E, 2014, J DIGIT IMAGING, V27, P588, DOI 10.1007/s10278-014-9703-2
  28. Lopes Paulo Gustavo Maciel, 2018, Radiol Bras, V51, P95, DOI 10.1590/0100-3984.2016.0211
  29. Marcovici PA, 2014, AM J ROENTGENOL, V203, P1265, DOI 10.2214/AJR.14.12636
  30. Mattos LA, 2019, J MINIM INVAS GYN, V26, P1016, DOI 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.017
  31. Nisolle M, 1997, FERTIL STERIL, V68, P585, DOI 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00191-X
  32. Norenberg D, 2017, INVEST RADIOL, V52, P232, DOI 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000336
  33. Schwartz LH, 2011, RADIOLOGY, V260, P174, DOI 10.1148/radiol.11101913
  34. Semaan HB, 2015, SPINE, V40, P1436, DOI 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001024
  35. Sistrom Chris L, 2005, J Am Coll Radiol, V2, P159, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.06.015
  36. Sluijter CE, 2016, VIRCHOWS ARCH, V468, P639, DOI 10.1007/s00428-016-1935-8
  37. Stillman Arthur E, 2008, J Am Coll Radiol, V5, P796, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.04.002

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/58