Structured Versus Non-Structured Reporting of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Imaging: A Systematic Review

IF 1.5 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
JGH Open Pub Date : 2025-09-28 DOI:10.1002/jgh3.70288
Richard Lo, Ziang Ma, Lynna Chen, Abhinav Vasudevan, Ashish Srinivasan
{"title":"Structured Versus Non-Structured Reporting of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Imaging: A Systematic Review","authors":"Richard Lo,&nbsp;Ziang Ma,&nbsp;Lynna Chen,&nbsp;Abhinav Vasudevan,&nbsp;Ashish Srinivasan","doi":"10.1002/jgh3.70288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Effective communication between radiologists and clinicians is essential for optimal inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management. Structured reporting (SR) of imaging reports may enhance interdisciplinary communication and clinical decision-making; however, its utility compared to non-structured reporting (NSR) in IBD remains unclear. This systematic review evaluated IBD clinician perceptions of SR versus NSR in IBD-related imaging.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched to January 2025 for studies comparing SR and NSR in abdominal and pelvic imaging for IBD, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and intestinal ultrasound (IUS). The primary outcome was perceived clarity and clinical utility by the referring clinician, with report completeness evaluated as a secondary outcome.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Six studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 199 IBD patients and 224 scans (105 MRI, 119 CT), with a total of 550 SR/NSR report pairs evaluated by 19 clinicians. No eligible studies assessed pelvic MRI or IUS. In four of five studies, clinicians perceived SR as clearer than NSR. Similarly, SR were viewed as having greater clinical utility for assessing disease activity, identifying disease phenotype, and influencing management decisions in four studies. SR were also associated with more complete reporting based on predefined radiological criteria in three studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Clinicians generally perceived SR to provide greater clarity and clinical utility than NSR in IBD-related imaging, potentially enhancing interdisciplinary communication and clinical decision-making. Further research is needed to validate these findings and evaluate their impact on patient outcomes in routine IBD practice.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":45861,"journal":{"name":"JGH Open","volume":"9 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12477271/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JGH Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgh3.70288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Effective communication between radiologists and clinicians is essential for optimal inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management. Structured reporting (SR) of imaging reports may enhance interdisciplinary communication and clinical decision-making; however, its utility compared to non-structured reporting (NSR) in IBD remains unclear. This systematic review evaluated IBD clinician perceptions of SR versus NSR in IBD-related imaging.

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched to January 2025 for studies comparing SR and NSR in abdominal and pelvic imaging for IBD, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and intestinal ultrasound (IUS). The primary outcome was perceived clarity and clinical utility by the referring clinician, with report completeness evaluated as a secondary outcome.

Results

Six studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 199 IBD patients and 224 scans (105 MRI, 119 CT), with a total of 550 SR/NSR report pairs evaluated by 19 clinicians. No eligible studies assessed pelvic MRI or IUS. In four of five studies, clinicians perceived SR as clearer than NSR. Similarly, SR were viewed as having greater clinical utility for assessing disease activity, identifying disease phenotype, and influencing management decisions in four studies. SR were also associated with more complete reporting based on predefined radiological criteria in three studies.

Conclusion

Clinicians generally perceived SR to provide greater clarity and clinical utility than NSR in IBD-related imaging, potentially enhancing interdisciplinary communication and clinical decision-making. Further research is needed to validate these findings and evaluate their impact on patient outcomes in routine IBD practice.

Abstract Image

炎症性肠病成像的结构化与非结构化报告:系统回顾。
背景:放射科医生和临床医生之间的有效沟通对于炎症性肠病(IBD)的最佳管理至关重要。影像报告的结构化报告(SR)可以加强跨学科的交流和临床决策;然而,与IBD的非结构化报告(NSR)相比,其效用尚不清楚。本系统综述评估了IBD临床医生在IBD相关成像中对SR和NSR的看法。方法:检索Embase、MEDLINE和CENTRAL,检索截至2025年1月比较SR和NSR在IBD腹部和盆腔成像中的研究,包括磁共振成像(MRI)、计算机断层扫描(CT)和肠道超声(IUS)。主要结果是由转诊临床医生感知的清晰度和临床效用,报告的完整性作为次要结果进行评估。结果:6项研究符合纳入标准,包括199名IBD患者和224次扫描(105次MRI, 119次CT),共有550对SR/NSR报告对由19名临床医生评估。没有合格的研究评估骨盆MRI或IUS。在五分之四的研究中,临床医生认为SR比NSR更清晰。同样,在四项研究中,SR被认为在评估疾病活动性、识别疾病表型和影响管理决策方面具有更大的临床效用。在三项研究中,SR也与基于预先确定的放射学标准的更完整的报告有关。结论:临床医生普遍认为,在ibd相关成像中,SR比NSR更清晰、更实用,有可能加强跨学科交流和临床决策。需要进一步的研究来验证这些发现,并评估它们对IBD常规实践患者预后的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JGH Open
JGH Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信