AJR Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Coakley, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clark, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Coakley, F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2003; 181:1422
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Not Impressed

John A. Clark

Ellesmere Radiology Associates Scarborough, ON M4T 1R8 Canada

Communication is one of the keystones of our profession, and we must constantly critically appraise our use of it. This is paramount when we are training residents and fellows because the positive and negative effects will be propagated.

Thus, I was disappointed to see a style guide recommend the passive voice in its guidelines [1]. Would not "left hydroureteronephrosis can be traced to the level of a 6-mm stone" read better as "there is a 6-mm stone at the left ureterovesical junction with proximal hydroureteronephrosis?"

I was most disappointed to see a style guide recommend (or passively accept) the vague term "impression" [2]. I do not give impressions. I strive to be definitive and to give interpretations, conclusions, or opinions.

The modern mantra "continuous quality improvement" applies to all aspects of practice including style guides.

References

  1. Coakley FV, Liberman L, Panicek DM. Style guidelines for radiology reporting: a manner of speaking. AJR2003; 180:327 –328[Free Full Text]
  2. Orrison WW, Nord TE, Kinard RE, Juhl JH. The language of certainty: proper terminology for the ending of the radiologic report. AJR 1985;145:1093 –1095[Free Full Text]

Reply

Fergus Coakley

University of California San Francisco, CA 94143-0628

My coauthors and I welcome Dr. Clark's comments on our opinion article [1]. As noted, we do not regard our proposed guidelines as written in stone but rather as a collection of suggestions that we have found helpful. When we wrote this article, we were aware that others may have different opinions. Therefore, we have objectively investigated the use of our guidelines and shown an improvement in the perceived quality of reports edited in accordance with these guidelines, as scored by interpreting physicians [2]. Although many authorities have put forward various suggestions as to how reports should be worded, we are unaware of previous studies that have validated such edicts by showing an improvement in report quality. If others have alternative approaches, we suggest that their approaches be evaluated in a systematic appraisal.

With respect to two specific points in Clark's letter, we deliberately avoid beginning sentences with "there is" or "there are" because such sentences can usually be reworded into a more concise form; moreover, reading a string of sentences beginning with "there is" and "there are" is mind-numbing. We are happy to use the heading "Impression" for the conclusion of our reports. I suspect that the physicians who interpret our reports are far more concerned with the content of this section rather than the title. We are in complete agreement with Clark that style guidelines, like all aspects of medical practice, should be subjected to continuous quality improvement. We hope that our suggestions further the dialogue on style guidelines for radiology reporting and would welcome any appropriately researched improvement on our offerings.

References

  1. Coakley FV, Liberman L, Panicek DM. Style guidelines for radiology reporting: a manner of speaking. AJR2003; 180:327 –328
  2. Coakley FV, Heinze SB, Shadbolt CL, et al. Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: effect on style quality. Acad Radiol 2003;10:289 –294[Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Coakley, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clark, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Coakley, F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS