Search Results: 1 - 10 of 100 matches for " "
All listed articles are free for downloading (OA Articles)
Page 1 /100
Display every page Item
Electronic Reporting in Radiology
M. Fatehi
Iranian Journal of Radiology , 2005,
Abstract: Introduction & Background: Despite well-known technologic advances in medical imaging and availability of modern modalities, the reporting aspect of radiology practice had not been changed until recent decade when IT facilities were used to improve the quality and workflow of radiology reporting. Report is still considered the most important indicator of the performance of radiologists. In this article some methods and technologies used to electronically produce and distribute radiology reports are shared. Automated / Semi-authomated Data Entry: One of the old methods to produce a report has been touch-screen panels to enter data using a checklist. It has replaced by modern PC based applications. Dictation / Speech Recognition: Automation of natural language reporting is the most widely developed method for electronic reporting. Hardware and software are designed for speech recognition, editing and elec-tronic signature. The effectiveness of this method in costs and time has been repeatedly documented. Although primarily seemed to be an automation of routine radiology practice, speech recognition has changed the work-flow of radiology department. A typical speech recognition system consists of (1) a speech engine, (2) an inter-face, (3) Integration (with PACS & RIS), (4) Navigation, (5) Macros & Templates, (6) Network issues, (7) User preferences, and (8) Text-to-voice converter. Structured Reporting: Structured reporting has been introduced as one of major substitutes for speech recogni-tion technology. Findings and interpretations are inserted into the report text using a promising capability to be integrated to a decision support system. DICOM standard permits inclusion of test element to images that are distributed with PACS and telecommunicated. In this way, when the clinician is viewing the image, inter-pretation and findings are also attached to the file. Currently DICOM SR has not the ability to be used as a comprehensive structured reporting platform. Multi-media Reporting: When we are in digital environment we do not need to limit ourselves to ordinary hardcopy films and text reports. We may include moving pictures, voice (warning or descriptive narrations from the interpreting radiologist), color images, etc. Familiarity of reporting radiologist and availability of ap-propriate viewer facilities in clinician’s offices are mandatory for successful MM Reporting. Report Distribution Using Information Technology: One of the most important advantages of electronic re-porting is potential for rapid and distant distribution of reports. Emailing, ins
Reporting guidelines for modelling studies  [cached]
Bennett Carol,Manuel Douglas G
BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2012, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-168
Abstract: Background Modelling studies are used widely to help inform decisions about health care and policy and their use is increasing. However, in order for modelling to gain strength as a tool for health policy, it is critical that key model factors are transparent so that users of models can have a clear understanding of the model and its limitations.Reporting guidelines are evidence-based tools that specify minimum criteria for authors to report their research such that readers can both critically appraise and interpret study findings. This study was conducted to determine whether there is an unmet need for population modelling reporting guidelines. Methods We conducted a review of the literature to identify: 1) guidance for reporting population modelling studies; and, 2) evidence on the quality of reporting of population modelling studies. Guidance for reporting was analysed using a thematic approach and the data was summarised as frequencies. Evidence on the quality of reporting was reviewed and summarized descriptively. Results There were no guidelines that specifically addressed the reporting of population modelling studies. We identified a number of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, some of which had sections that were relevant population modelling studies. Amongst seven relevant records, we identified 69 quality criteria that have distinct reporting characteristics. We identified two papers that addressed reporting practices of modelling studies. Overall, with the exception of describing the data used for calibration, there was little consistency in reporting. Conclusions While numerous guidelines exist for developing and evaluating health technology assessment and economic evaluation models, which by extension could be applicable to population modelling studies, there is variation in their comprehensiveness and in the consistency of reporting these methods. Population modelling studies may be an area which would benefit from the development of a reporting guideline.
Remote Reporting in Radiology: characteristics and problems
Mehdi Yousefi,Ali Hekmatnia,Afshin Niakan
Iranian Journal of Radiology , 2009,
Abstract: "nIn this paper we review that how we can implement a remote reporting system. "n Methods that we advice in this article experienced in sepahan Imaging Center for 40 days with about 50 MRI cases every day. "n First we studied on remote reporting system that has not any interference with health care system standards. "nIn chosen standard items, accessibility, timely and cost benefits parameters considered and tried to adjust the process as observe the standards. We need these bases for implementing this system. "nHardware: Internet Connection ,Server "n Software: Standard PACS server, Teleradiology System "nFirst need connection between computers, that For Long distance, internet to be more economic. There are two available types of high speed Internet connection. Leased line DSL that is too expensive and ADSL connection by phone Line. The size of any MRI Dicom files is about 50 MB size so after RAR(Roshal Archive a file compression format) compression it would be about 20 MB size. With 1Mbps ADSL line download one patient study files would take 2.6 minute (128 kBps) and user can download all of today patients files in about 2 hours. but always our service provider shared ADSL lines with another persons in this status download one study will take 2 times more. In this state it is better for radiologist that download all studies Dicom files and view them after that. The next part is Teleradiology system. The MRI study of any patient stored on PACS system storage and we need Teleradiogy system for sharing Images on web. A standard Teleradiology system makes images accessible in two types: Online: Radiologist can see the images without download them in internet browser. Some of Teleradiology systems compress images in lossy jpeg format so some high frequency information is lost. We need images in Dicom MONOCHROME type with facilities for changing contrast and brightness and etc. In Dicom File: when speed is not suitable or we need image processing we need Dicom source files, that we can download and open them with any Dicom standard viewer. Teleradiology system compresses Dicom files in RAR and makes it accessible for downloading. We tried to use remote desktop connection so loosed images quality against waste many time. The next step was providing radiologist report Radiologist can type reports in Teleradiology system as Structured Report(SR) where it saved in Dicom server(Teleradiology system must Support this option) Also for someone that want to use Dictaphone, they can use electronic voice boxes like yahoo voice box. They work with low internet speed
Poul Erik Andersen's radiological work on Osteochondrodysplasias and interventional radiology  [cached]
Poul Erik Andersen
World Journal of Radiology , 2011, DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v3.i8.210
Abstract: Poul Erik Andersen is a Professor and Interventional Radiologist at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense and Odense University Hospital, Denmark. His innovative and expertise is primarily in vascular interventions where he has introduced and developed many procedures at Odense University Hospital. His significant experience and extensive scientific work has led to many posts in the Danish Society of Interventional Radiology, the European Society of Radiology and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, where he is a fellow and has passed the European Board of Interventional Radiology - The European qualification in Interventional Radiology.
Guidelines for histopathological specimen examination and diagnostic reporting of primary bone tumours
D Charles Mangham, Nicholas A Athanasou
Clinical Sarcoma Research , 2011, DOI: 10.1186/2045-3329-1-6
Abstract: This review is intended to provide histopathologists with guidelines for specimen handling and diagnostic reporting of benign and malignant primary bone tumours; the principles of specimen handling required for assessment of secondary bone tumours are similar. As many primary bone tumours are uncommon or rare, experience in diagnostic orthopaedic pathology is required to maintain a high standard of histological reporting of bone tumours; participation in an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme which includes bone tumour pathology is recommended.Close cooperation is needed between the histopathologist and radiology, surgical, oncology and other clinical colleagues in the diagnosis and treatment of bone tumours; consensus clinical practice guidelines for managing bone sarcomas have been recently published [1,2]. All primary malignant bone tumour cases should be discussed at a properly constituted sarcoma multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting.Primary benign and malignant bone tumours vary widely in their clinical behaviour and pathological features. The nomenclature and classification of primary bone tumours is based mainly on the pathway of tumour cell differentiation; this is usually evidenced by the type of connective tissue matrix formed by tumour cells. The histogenesis of many primary bone tumours, however, is not known and a number of bone tumours are by convention classified by distinct morphological or clinicopathological features (eg giant cell tumour of bone) or by karyotypic and molecular genetic abnormalities (eg Ewing's sarcoma) [3,4]. The 2002 World Health Organisation (WHO) classification of bone tumours is recommended for histological reporting of bone tumours as it is well-recognised and widely employed internationally [3]. [Table 1].Histological grading of a bone sarcoma provides a guide as to its biological behaviour and is based largely on the degree of cellular and nuclear pleomorphism, cellularity, mitotic activity and the extent of tumour nec
Results of a survey by the European Society of Radiology (ESR): undergraduate radiology education in Europe—influences of a modern teaching approach
Elena Oris,Koenraad Verstraete,Martin Valcke
Insights into Imaging , 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s13244-012-0149-0
Abstract: This study looks at differences in the nature of formal radiology teaching.
Reporting Guidelines for Survey Research: An Analysis of Published Guidance and Reporting Practices  [PDF]
Carol Bennett ,Sara Khangura,Jamie C. Brehaut,Ian D. Graham,David Moher,Beth K. Potter,Jeremy M. Grimshaw
PLOS Medicine , 2011, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069
Abstract: Background Research needs to be reported transparently so readers can critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the design, conduct, and analysis of studies. Reporting guidelines have been developed to inform reporting for a variety of study designs. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop a reporting guideline for survey research. Methods and Findings We conducted a three-part project: (1) a systematic review of the literature (including “Instructions to Authors” from the top five journals of 33 medical specialties and top 15 general and internal medicine journals) to identify guidance for reporting survey research; (2) a systematic review of evidence on the quality of reporting of surveys; and (3) a review of reporting of key quality criteria for survey research in 117 recently published reports of self-administered surveys. Fewer than 7% of medical journals (n = 165) provided guidance to authors on survey research despite a majority having published survey-based studies in recent years. We identified four published checklists for conducting or reporting survey research, none of which were validated. We identified eight previous reviews of survey reporting quality, which focused on issues of non-response and accessibility of questionnaires. Our own review of 117 published survey studies revealed that many items were poorly reported: few studies provided the survey or core questions (35%), reported the validity or reliability of the instrument (19%), defined the response rate (25%), discussed the representativeness of the sample (11%), or identified how missing data were handled (11%). Conclusions There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal reporting of survey research. The majority of key reporting criteria are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey research articles. Our findings highlight the need for clear and consistent reporting guidelines specific to survey research. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Usability of irreversible image compression in radiological imaging. A position paper by the European Society of Radiology (ESR)
Insights into Imaging , 2011, DOI: 10.1007/s13244-011-0071-x
Reporting of conflicts of interest in guidelines of preventive and therapeutic interventions
George N Papanikolaou, Maria S Baltogianni, Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Anna-Bettina Haidich, Ioannis A Giannakakis, John PA Ioannidis
BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2001, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-1-3
Abstract: Only 7 guidelines (3.7%) mentioned conflicts of interest and all were published in 1999 (17.5% (7/40) of guidelines published in 1999 alone). Reporting of conflicts of interest differed significantly by journal (p=0.026), availability of disclosure policy by the journal (p=0.043), source of funding (p < 0.001) and number of authors (p=0.004). In the entire database of 191 guidelines, a mere 18 authors disclosed a total of 24 potential conflicts of interest and most pertained to minor issues.Despite some recent improvement, reporting of conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines published in influential journals is largely neglected.Guidelines have assumed a major role in forming practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care [1]. It is important that such efforts are not affected by conflicts of interest and that guidelines are transparent to such potential conflicts. This is even more significant for clinical guidelines published in influential medical journals that are likely to have a major impact upon therapeutic and preventive clinical care and public health worldwide. However, there has been no study of the reporting of conflicts of interest in guidelines published in medical journals. We undertook an evaluation of this issue in a sample of publications of clinical guidelines.Our study evaluated 6 prestigious medical journals that are likely to publish influential clinical guidelines. The journals were selected so as to include the 4 most extensively-cited clinical medicine interdisciplinary journals, as well as the most extensively-cited adult internal medicine journal and the most extensively-cited pediatric medicine journal according to the Institute of Scientific Information Journal Citation Report. Each selected journal received more than 20,000 citations in 1999. Thus we hand-searched the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, New England Journal of Medic
ESR guidelines for the communication of urgent and unexpected findings
Insights into Imaging , 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s13244-011-0135-y
Abstract: Referrers should be aware of their responsibility to read and act on radiological reports.
Page 1 /100
Display every page Item

Copyright © 2008-2017 Open Access Library. All rights reserved.