Caveat reporting in ultrasound interpretation of surgical pathology: a comparison of sonographer versus radiologist.
BACKGROUND
Radiology reports provide specialist interpretation of images and relate these findings to the patient's symptoms and signs. This study compared ultrasound (USS) reports generated by radiologists and sonographers to determine if any significant or clinically relevant differences existed.


METHODS
A retrospective analysis of 624 consecutive USS reports was carried out. The reports were assessed for the presence of a 'disclaimer' or 'caveat' pertaining to the quality of the images and were analysed with respect to the clarity of their wording and ability to answer the clinical request.


RESULTS
The majority of sonographer USS reports contained a disclaimer regarding the quality of the USS images (57.1%) compared with a smaller proportion of radiologist scans (9.9%) (P < 0.001). Overall, radiologists performed significantly better in providing a clear negative or positive diagnosis to the clinical question on the request form, when compared with sonographers (88.5% vs. 65.4%, P < 0.001).


CONCLUSIONS
'Disclaimer' comments and 'hedging' must be avoided in radiology reporting. While feedback as to the accuracy of the radiology images is important, overuse of such terms undermines the validity of the radiology report.
Garcea
Giuseppe
G
Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine, Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK. gg43@le.ac.uk
Mahmoud
Asif
A
Ong
Seok Ling
SL
Rees
Yvonee
Y
Berry
David P
DP
Dennison
Ashely R
AR
D004739:England; D006801:Humans; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D011871:Radiology / Q000592:standards*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000592:standards*