Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages through multilingual structured reporting

  • Radiological Education
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Globalization and migration are increasing the demand for reports in different languages. We aimed to examine if structured reports created by non-German-speaking radiologists with multilingual templates show significant differences in quality to structured reports and free-text reports by German native speakers.

Methods

We used structured templates that allow radiologists to report in their mother tongue and then switch the report language to German or English automatically using proprietary software. German- and English-speaking radiology residents created structured reports in both German and English with these templates. Reports for three different exam types were created (intensive care chest x-ray, shoulder x-ray specifically for degenerative processes, and CT pulmonary angiogram for pulmonary embolism). The report quality of automatically translated German structured reports by English-speaking radiologists and German structured reports by German radiologists was then evaluated by German clinicians with a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to assess attributes including content, comprehensibility, clinical consequences, and overall quality.

Results

Structured reports by English-speaking radiologists that were automatically translated into German and German structured reports by German radiologists both received very high or high overall quality ratings in the majority of cases, showing no significant differences in quality. Likewise, no significant differences were observed between the two report types regarding comprehensibility and clinical consequences. Structured reports by German radiologists received significantly better ratings for overall quality and comprehensibility compared to free-text reports by German radiologists.

Conclusions

Multilingual structured reporting templates may serve as a feasible tool for creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages.

Key Points

• Multilingualism in structured reporting templates can be a useful tool for creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages.

• German reports created with multilingual structured reporting templates by English-speaking radiologists and German structured reports by German radiologists exhibit no significant differences in overall report quality.

• Multilingual structured reporting templates can help radiologists overcome communication barriers and facilitate teleradiology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ES:

English-speaking radiologists

FTR:

Free-text report

FTR_GS:

Free-text reports by German speakers

GS:

German-speaking radiologists

IMG:

International medical graduate

RSNA:

Radiological Society of North America

SR:

Structured report

SR_ES:

Structured reports by English speakers automatically translated into German

SR_GS:

Structured reports by German speakers

References

  1. World Health Organization (2016) Global strategy on human resources for health: workforce 2030. World Health Organization, Geneva Available via http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/globstrathrh-2030/en/. Accessed 20 Sept 2018

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bundesärztekammer (2017) Ärztestatistik 2017. Bundesärztekammer, Berlin. Available via https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/ueber-uns/aerztestatistik/aerztestatistik-2017/. Accessed 20 Sept 2018

  3. Slowther A, Lewando Hundt GA, Purkis J, Taylor R (2012) Experiences of non-UK-qualified doctors working within the UK regulatory framework: a qualitative study. J R Soc Med 105:157–165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kalra G, Bhugra DK, Shah N (2012) Identifying and addressing stresses in international medical graduates. Acad Psychiatry 36:323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall P, Kelly E, Dojeiji S, Byszewski A, Marks M (2004) Communication skills, cultural challenges and individual support: challenges of international medical graduates in a Canadian healthcare environment. Med Teach 26:120–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Skjeggestad E, Norvoll R, Sandal GM, Gulbrandsen P (2017) How do international medical graduates and colleagues perceive and deal with difficulties in everyday collaboration? A qualitative study. Scand J Public Health 45:428–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Klingler C, Marckmann G (2016) Difficulties experienced by migrant physicians working in German hospitals: a qualitative interview study. Hum Resour Health 14:57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rabol LI, Andersen ML, Ostergaard D, Bjørn B, Lilja B, Mogensen T (2011) Republished error management: descriptions of verbal communication errors between staff. An analysis of 84 root cause analysis-reports from Danish hospitals. Postgrad Med J 87:783–789

  9. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system (Vol. 6). Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

  10. European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2011) Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights Imaging 2:93–96

  11. Bosmans JM, Neri E, Ratib O, Kahn CE Jr (2015) Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel. Insights Imaging 6:129–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2018) ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology. Insights Imaging 9:1–7

  13. Sabel BO, Plum JL, Czihal M et al (2018) Structured reporting of CT angiography runoff examinations of the lower extremities. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 55:679–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Haack M et al (2018) Structured reports of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies have the potential to improve overall report quality compared to free text reports. Eur Radiol 28:308–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Buckley BW, Daly L, Allen GN, Ridge CA (2018) Recall of structured radiology reports is significantly superior to that of unstructured reports. Br J Radiol 91:20170670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sabel BO, Plum JL, Kneidinger N et al (2017) Structured reporting of CT examinations in acute pulmonary embolism. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 11:188–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Norenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W et al (2016) Structured reporting of rectal magnetic resonance imaging in suspected primary rectal cancer: potential benefits for surgical planning and interdisciplinary communication. Invest Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000336

  18. Gassenmaier S, Armbruster M, Haasters F et al (2017) Structured reporting of MRI of the shoulder - improvement of report quality? Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4778-z

  19. Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:584–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H (2011) Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 260:174–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Bashir MR et al (2017) Structured reporting of CT enterography for inflammatory bowel disease: effect on key feature reporting, accuracy across training levels, and subjective assessment of disease by referring physicians. Abdom Radiol (NY). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1136-1

  23. Schoeppe F, Sommer WH, Norenberg D et al (2018) Structured reporting adds clinical value in primary CT staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol 28:3702–3709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stramare R, Scattolin G, Beltrame V et al (2012) Structured reporting using a shared indexed multilingual radiology lexicon. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 7:621–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ross P, Sepper R, Pohjonen H (2010) Cross-border teleradiology-experience from two international teleradiology projects. Eur J Radiol 73:20–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Radiological Society of North America (2014) Ct chest pulmonary embolism. Available via http://www.radreport.org/template/0000116. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  27. Radiological Society of North America (2014) Shoulder xray. Available via http://www.radreport.org/template/0000154. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  28. Radiological Society of North America (2014) Chest xray - post-op. Available via http://radreport.org/template/0000145. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  29. Schoppe F, Sommer WH, Schmidutz F et al (2018) Structured reporting of x-rays for atraumatic shoulder pain: advantages over free text? BMC Med Imaging 18:20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. LimeSurvey GmbH (2018) The online survey tool. Available via https://www.limesurvey.org/de/. Accessed 5 Sept 2018

  31. Yang C, Kasales CJ, Ouyang T et al (2014) A succinct rating scale for radiology report quality. SAGE Open Med 2:2050312114563101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wallis A, Edey A, Prothero D, McCoubrie P (2013) The Bristol Radiology Report Assessment Tool (BRRAT): developing a workplace-based assessment tool for radiology reporting skills. Clin Radiol 68:1146–1154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wallis A, McCoubrie P (2011) The radiology report--are we getting the message across? Clin Radiol 66:1015–1022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Blackmore CC (2007) Defining quality in radiology. J Am Coll Radiol 4:217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH (2010) Radiology reporting: a general practitioner’s perspective. Br J Radiol 83:17–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES et al (2009) Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 252:852–856

  37. Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR (2001) Radiology reports : examining radiologist and clinical preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:591–598

  38. Johnson AJ, Ying J, Swan JS, Williams LS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2004) Improving the quality of radiology reporting: a physician survey to define the target. J Am Coll Radiol 1:497–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Collard MD, Tellier J, Chowdhury AS, Lowe LH (2014) Improvement in reporting skills of radiology residents with a structured reporting curriculum. Acad Radiol 21:126–133

  40. Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, Parizel PM (2009) Structure and content of radiology reports, a quantitative and qualitative study in eight medical centers. Eur J Radiol 72:354–358

  41. Heikkinen K, Löyttyniemi M, Kormano M (2000) Structure and content of 400 CT reports in four teaching hospitals using a new, Windows-based software tool. Acta Radiol 41:102–105

  42. Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM (2011) The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology 259:184–195

  43. Johnson AJ, Chen MY, Swan SJ, Applegate KE, Littenberg B (2009) Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation. Radiology 253:74–80

  44. Faggioni L, Coppola F, Ferrari R, Neri E, Regge D (2017) Usage of structured reporting in radiological practice: results from an Italian online survey. Eur Radiol 27:1934–1943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Powell DK, Silberzweig JE (2015) State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey. Acad Radiol 22:226–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Samartine S, White L, McKeon D, Becker M (2015) Enhancing structured reporting: improving quality by tailoring the report to the clinical scenario. J Am Coll Radiol 12:845–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dickerson E, Davenport MS, Syed F et al (2017) Effect of template reporting of brain MRIs for multiple sclerosis on report thoroughness and neurologist-rated quality: results of a prospective quality improvement project. J Am Coll Radiol 14:371–379 e371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tarulli E, Thipphavong S, Jhaveri K (2015) A structured approach to reporting rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 40:3002–3011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Flusberg M, Ganeles J, Ekinci T et al (2017) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of CT and MRI reports for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1206–1211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Srinivasa Babu A, Brooks ML (2015) The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. Radiographics 35:547–554

  51. Ganeshan D, Duong PT, Probyn L et al (2018) Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol 25:66–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Turner AM, Bergman M, Brownstein M, Cole K, Kirchhoff K (2014) A comparison of human and machine translation of health promotion materials for public health practice: time, costs, and quality. J Public Health Manag Pract 20:523–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Randhawa G, Ferreyra M, Ahmed R, Ezzat O, Pottie K (2013) Using machine translation in clinical practice. Can Fam Physician 59:382–383

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Dew KN, Turner AM, Choi YK, Bosold A, Kirchhoff K (2018) Development of machine translation technology for assisting health communication: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform 85:56–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. L. M. Sobez and S. H. Kim contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    L. M. Sobez, S. H. Kim, W. H. Sommer, B. Sabel, D. Nörenberg & F. Galiè

  2. Department of Internal Medicine IV, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    M. Angstwurm & S. Störmann

  3. Department of Trauma Surgery, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    D. Pförringer

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Munich (LMU), Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    F. Schmidutz

  5. BG Trauma Center Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Schnarrenbergstr. 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    F. Schmidutz

  6. School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s Health Partners, St Thomas’ Hospital, King’s College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK

    D. Prezzi & C. Kelly-Morland

  7. Department of Radiology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK

    D. Prezzi & C. Kelly-Morland

  8. Institute for Medical Education, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Pettenkoferstraße 8a, 80336, Munich, Germany

    M. Berndt

Authors
  1. L. M. Sobez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. H. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Angstwurm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Störmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Pförringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Schmidutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. Prezzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. C. Kelly-Morland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. W. H. Sommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. B. Sabel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. D. Nörenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  12. M. Berndt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  13. F. Galiè
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Galiè.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Wieland H. Sommer.

Conflict of interest

The following authors of this manuscript declare relationships with Smart Reporting GmbH (online software company for structured reporting templates):

Lara Sobez: created structured templates; Su Hwan Kim: created and reviewed structured templates; Franziska Galiè: created and reviewed structured templates, background research; Wieland Sommer: co-founder.

All other authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to the study.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• quantitative

• single-center study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 768 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sobez, L.M., Kim, S.H., Angstwurm, M. et al. Creating high-quality radiology reports in foreign languages through multilingual structured reporting. Eur Radiol 29, 6038–6048 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06206-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06206-8

Keywords