Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: Effect on style quality

Fergus V. Coakley, Stefan B. Heinze, Clair L. Shadbolt, Lawrence H. Schwartz, Michelle S. Ginsberg, Robert A. Lefkowitz, Susan Hilton, Kevin Conlon, Steven Leibel, Alan Turnbull, David M. Panicek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations


Rationale and Objectives. The authors performed this study to determine the effect of routine editing on the style quality of trainee-generated radiology reports. Materials and Methods. Trainee-generated reports of 50 body computed tomographic scans obtained at a tertiary care cancer center were edited in a routine fashion by one of two attending radiologists. Three physicians and four radiologists each independently evaluated the randomized unedited and edited reports (n = 100) and rated each report for clarity, brevity, readability, and quality of the impression by using a five-point scale. Results. Editing significantly improved mean ratings for clarity (4.6 after editing vs 4.2 before editing, P < .007), brevity (4.6 vs 4.2, P < .007), readability (4.4 vs 4.1, P < .007), and quality of the impression (4.5 vs 4.3, P < .007). Conclusion. Routine editing of trainee-generated reports significantly improves the perceived report quality. This finding suggests that greater emphasis should be placed on stylistic aspects of reporting during training to improve report style quality at dictation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)289-294
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic radiology
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 1 2003
Externally publishedYes


  • Radiology and radiologists
  • Radiology and radiologists, departmental management

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Routine editing of trainee-generated radiology reports: Effect on style quality'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this