HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pochaczevsky, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pochaczevsky, R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Image-Annotated Radiographic Reports

Jack D. Weiler Hospital Montefiore Medical Center Bronx, NY

 
WEB—This is a Web exclusive article.

I agree with Reiner and Siegel [1] that annotations to the images can, in many instances, provide more graphic information to referring physicians. However, I also believe that a well-written radiology report is essential in all cases. I congratulate Dr. Berlin on his brilliant defense of traditional written reports and his advice on how to improve them [2].

Approximately 30 years ago, I also initiated annotated reports, but I always subsequently coupled them with a written report. I described a pilot method that consisted of selecting one or two key radiographs and annotated them with an erasable wax pencil. A single arrow and a few words sufficed in most cases. The radiograph was then copied by a 100-mm daylight direct-positive copier (Delcomat, Odelca). The resultant high-quality 100-mm transparencies were then secured to the report form and immediately sent to the clinician. Many physicians personally expressed satisfaction with the annotated reports during the pilot study [3].

Reiner and Siegel [1] indicate that annotations can easily be made on modern PACS systems. I suggest that the radiologist select key or significant images for annotation, which should not be extensive. Although annotations can be electronically erased, I believe that the original images should be preserved per se. PACS representatives have indicated that duplication of significant images may be feasible in the near future, with ways found for annotations to be included on a separate series of the same study rather than automatically included on the original images.

I again recommend simple arrows and a few written, easily understood comments so that referring physicians need not learn a new system or vocabulary of symbols. Additional and more detailed information could be indicated in the original reports.

References

Top References

 

1. Reiner B, Siegel E. Radiology reporting: returning to our image-centric roots. AJR 2006;187 :1151 –1155[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Berlin L. Replacing traditional text radiology reports with image-centric reports: a shift from epiphany to enigma? AJR 2006; 187:1156 –1159[Free Full Text]
3. Pochaczevsky R. The "self-reporting radiograph": a new pictorial dimension to the radiologist's report. (letter) Br J Radiol 1975; 48:65[Medline]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Berlin Reply Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2007; 188(6): W577 - W577. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pochaczevsky, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pochaczevsky, R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?