Discrepancies in Interpretation of Japanese Radiology Report Expressions Between Radiologists and Referring Physicians
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate discrepancies between radiologists and referring physicians in the interpretation of diagnostic probabilities conveyed by common Japanese expressions used in radiology reports.
Materials and Methods
Fifteen expressions commonly used to convey diagnostic probabilities in radiology reports were selected by five attending radiologists. An anonymous online survey was distributed to 26 radiologists and 33 referring physicians at a single institution. Participants assigned a diagnostic probability (from 0% to 100% in 10% increments) to each expression. Differences in median probabilities between radiologists and referring physicians were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Variability in interpretation was assessed using interquartile range (IQR), with IQR ≥ 30% defined as substantial variability.
Results
All radiologists (26/26) and 97% of referring physicians (32/33) completed the survey. Seven of the 15 expressions showed statistically significant differences in interpretation between radiologists and referring physicians: “c/w” (80% vs. 60%; p = 0.031), the Japanese equivalents of “present” (100% vs. 100%; p = 0.024), “suspect of” (80% vs. 70%; p = 0.007), “possibly” (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.001), “unlikely” (10% vs. 10%; p = 0.022), “cannot be ruled out” (25% vs. 40%; p < 0.001), and “not inconsistent with” (80% vs. 90%; p = 0.008). Substantial variability in interpretation (IQR ≥ 30%) was observed for four expressions: “cannot be ruled out” (IQR, 10%–40%), “s/o” (IQR, 60%–90%), “c/w” (IQR, 50%–90%), and “not inconsistent with” (IQR, 70%–100%).
Conclusion
This study revealed that nearly half of the Japanese expressions commonly used to convey diagnostic probabilities were interpreted differently by radiologists and referring physicians. These discrepancies highlight the need for a standardized lexicon to improve clarity and consistency in radiology reporting.
Compliance with Reporting Guidelines
This study was conducted in accordance with the STROBE guidelines for observational studies.
