Difference between revisions of "Reporting"
m (See also, disclaimers) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Top |
|author1=[[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] | |author1=[[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] | ||
|author2= | |author2= | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:''See also: [[Radlines:Disclaimers]]'' | :''See also: [[Radlines:Disclaimers]]'' | ||
| + | {{Bottom}} | ||
Revision as of 11:45, 26 September 2018
Author:
Mikael Häggström [notes 1]
Following are general notes on reporting on radiology images.
Contents
Depth
If your report is likely to undergo double reading, it needs to be more detailed, particularly in the inclusion of conditions you have negated, because the doctor who will do the double reading then gets to know that you have looked at those locations.
Comparison
A report should include the date(s) of any images used for comparison. Comparison is not needed if absence of pathology is clear even without it. For short reports, the date (in local date format) can be integrated in a sentence if the form layout allows, such as "Compared to the CT July 3, 2018, the consolidation...". Where multiple comparisons are expected, the comparison should be mentioned separately at the beginning of the report, such as "Comparison: July 3, 2018".
Tailoring
The information contained in the reporting sections in Radlines assume that the clinician has requested the imaging for the topic of the article at hand, but should be tailored to any particular questions or requests by the clinician. Any relevant findings beyond the issues or questions raised by the clinician should also be mentioned.
- See also: Radlines:Disclaimers
Notes
- ↑ For a full list of contributors, see article history. Creators of images are attributed at the image description pages, seen by clicking on the images. See Radlines:Authorship for details.
