Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109621 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109621 33677417!7917443!33677417     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Eur+J+Radiol 2021 ; 138 (ä): 109621 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33677417|t=2021. Chest CT in COVID-19 patients: Structured vs conventional reporting |pdf=|usr=}}{{33677417}} gab.com Text Chest CT in COVID-19 patients: Structured vs conventional reporting JO: Eur J Radiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33677417 #FOAvip PURPOSE: To assess clinician satisfaction with structured (SR) and conventional (CR) radiological reports for chest CT exams in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, objectively comparing both reporting strategies. METHOD: We retrospectively included 68 CTs (61 patients) with COVID-19. CRs were collected from the digital database while corresponding SRs were written by an expert radiologist, including a sign checklist, severity score index and final impressions. New CRs were prepared for a random subset (n = 10) of cases, to allow comparisons in reporting time and word count. CRs were analyzed to record severity score and final impressions inclusion. A random subset of 40 paired CRs and SRs was evaluated by two clinicians to assess, using a Likert scale, readability, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, conciseness, clinical impact, and overall quality. RESULTS: Overall, 19/68 (28 %) and 9/68 (13 %) of CRs included final impressions and severity score, respectively. SR writing required significantly (p < 0.001) less time (mean = 308 s; SD +/- 60 s) compared to CRs (mean = 458 s; SD +/- 72 s). On the other hand, word count was not significantly different (p = 0.059, median = 100 and 106, range = 106-139 and 88-131 for SRs and CRs, respectively). Both clinicians expressed significantly (all p < 0.01) higher scores for SRs compared to CRs in all categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the use of chest CT SRs in COVID-19 patients to improve referring physician satisfaction, optimizing reporting time and provide a greater amount and quality of information within the report. Twit Text FOAVip Chest CT in COVID-19 patients: Structured vs conventional reporting ????Eur J Radiol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33677417 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33677417 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33677417}}</ref> Chest CT in COVID-19 patients: Structured vs conventional reporting #MMPMID33677417 Stanzione A; Ponsiglione A; Cuocolo R; Rumolo M; Santarsiere M; Scotto R; Viceconte G; Imbriaco M; Maurea S; Camera L; Gentile I; Brunetti A Eur J Radiol 2021[May]; 138 (ä): 109621 PMID33677417show ga PURPOSE: To assess clinician satisfaction with structured (SR) and conventional (CR) radiological reports for chest CT exams in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, objectively comparing both reporting strategies. METHOD: We retrospectively included 68 CTs (61 patients) with COVID-19. CRs were collected from the digital database while corresponding SRs were written by an expert radiologist, including a sign checklist, severity score index and final impressions. New CRs were prepared for a random subset (n = 10) of cases, to allow comparisons in reporting time and word count. CRs were analyzed to record severity score and final impressions inclusion. A random subset of 40 paired CRs and SRs was evaluated by two clinicians to assess, using a Likert scale, readability, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, conciseness, clinical impact, and overall quality. RESULTS: Overall, 19/68 (28 %) and 9/68 (13 %) of CRs included final impressions and severity score, respectively. SR writing required significantly (p < 0.001) less time (mean = 308 s; SD +/- 60 s) compared to CRs (mean = 458 s; SD +/- 72 s). On the other hand, word count was not significantly different (p = 0.059, median = 100 and 106, range = 106-139 and 88-131 for SRs and CRs, respectively). Both clinicians expressed significantly (all p < 0.01) higher scores for SRs compared to CRs in all categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the use of chest CT SRs in COVID-19 patients to improve referring physician satisfaction, optimizing reporting time and provide a greater amount and quality of information within the report. |*COVID-19[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Radiologists[MESH] |Retrospective Studies[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH]Chest CT in COVID-19 patients: Structured vs conventional reporting (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing