Comparison of the clinical usefulness of structured and free-text reports for interpretation of jaw lesions on cone beam computed tomography images

Published:August 25, 2022DOI:


      This study compared the clinical usefulness of structured reports (SRs) and free-text reports (FTRs) of lesions depicted on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images from the perspectives of report providers and receivers.

      Study Design

      In total, 36 CBCT images of jaw lesions obtained between February 2020 and August 2020 were evaluated. A working group of 3 oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMRs) established a reporting system and prepared reports. Evaluation group I (2 OMRs) wrote SRs and FTRs for each case and assessed the reporting process for the criteria of convenience and organization. Evaluation group II (3 general practitioners [GPs] and 3 oral and maxillofacial surgeons [OMSs]) assessed the reports for the criteria of productivity, consistency, and organization. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess the usefulness of each report. Scores were statistically compared according to report type with the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test.


      The SRs scored significantly higher for all criteria as assessed by evaluation group I and the GPs of group II (P < .001). The FTRs scored significantly higher for productivity and organization as assessed by the OMSs of group II (P = .005 for both criteria).


      The clinical usefulness of reports may differ according to roles of the report recipients in diagnosis and treatment.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      1. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. 2020. Available at: Accessed June 22, 2022.

      2. Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR). CAR standard for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. 2010. Available at: Accessed June 22, 2022.

        • European Society of Radiology (ESR)
        Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR).
        Insights Imaging. 2011; 2: 93-96
      3. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Clinical radiology written report guidelines, Version 7.0. 2020. Available at: Accessed June 22, 2022.

      4. Standards for the Interpretation and Reporting of Imaging Investigations.
        2nd ed. The Royal College of Radiologists, London, England2018
        • Marcovici PA
        • Taylor GA.
        Journal Club: structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203: 1265-1271
        • Sistrom CL
        • Honeyman-Buck J.
        Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185: 804-812
        • Krupinski EA
        • Hall ET
        • Jaw S
        • Reiner B
        • Siegel E.
        Influence of radiology report format on reading time and comprehension.
        J Digit Imaging. 2012; 25: 63-69
        • Marcal LP
        • Fox PS
        • Evans DB
        • et al.
        Analysis of free-form radiology dictations for completeness and clarity for pancreatic cancer staging.
        Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40: 2391-2397
        • Lin E
        • Powell DK
        • Kagetsu NJ.
        Efficacy of a checklist-style structured radiology reporting template in reducing resident misses on cervical spine computed tomography examinations.
        J Digit Imaging. 2014; 27: 588-593
        • Ghoshhajra BB
        • Lee AM
        • Ferencik M
        • et al.
        Interpreting the interpretations: the use of structured reporting improves referring clinicians' comprehension of coronary CT angiography reports.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 432-438
        • Schwartz LH
        • Panicek DM
        • Berk AR
        • Li Y
        • Hricak H.
        Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting.
        Radiology. 2011; 260: 174-181
        • Johnson AJ
        • Chen MY
        • Swan JS
        • Applegate KE
        • Littenberg B.
        Cohort study of structured reporting compared with conventional dictation.
        Radiology. 2009; 253: 74-80
      5. Radiological Society of North America. RadReport template library. Available at: Accessed April 28, 2021.

      6. American College of Radiology. Reporting and Data Systems (RADS). Available at: Accessed April 28, 2021.

        • Vaché T
        • Bratan F
        • Mège-Lechevallier F
        • Roche S
        • Rabilloud M
        • Rouvière O.
        Characterization of prostate lesion as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy.
        Radiology. 2014; 272: 446-455
        • Quattrocchi CC
        • Giona A
        • Di Martino AC
        • et al.
        Extra-spinal incidental findings at lumber spine MRI in the general population: a large cohort study.
        Insights Imaging. 2013; 4: 301-308
        • McKee BJ
        • Regis SM
        • McKee AB
        • Flacke S
        • Wald C.
        Performance of ACR Lung-RADS in a clinical CT lung screening program.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 273-276
        • Turkbey B
        • Rosenkrantz AB
        • Haider MA
        • et al.
        Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 76: 340-351
        • Lötsch J
        • Hummel T.
        Clinical usefulness of self-rated olfactory performance—a data science-based assessment of 6000 patients.
        Chem Senses. 2019; 44: 357-364
        • Sakai Y
        • Sato Y
        • Sato M
        • Watanabe M.
        Clinical usefulness of library and information services in Japan: the detailed use and value of information in clinical settings.
        PLoS ONE. 2018; 13e0199944
        • Baker T
        • Gerdin M.
        The clinical usefulness of prognostic prediction models in critical illness.
        Eur J Intern Med. 2017; 45: 37-40
      7. BeamReaders. Pathosis sample case. Available at: 20Sample%20Case%20Aug16.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2022.

      8. Dental Radiology Diagnostics. Sample report. Available at: pdf. Accessed June 22, 2022.

      9. Dr G's Toothpix. Sample report. Available at: Accessed June 22, 2022.

      10. PRO Dental Radiology. Sample report. Available at: 9.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2022.

      11. CT Dent Ltd. Radiology report example. Available at: Accessed June 22, 2022.

        • Geist JR.
        Are structured reports in the future for oral and maxillofacial radiology?.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018; 126: 205-207
        • Brown J
        • Jacobs R
        • Levring Jäghagen E
        • et al.
        Basic training requirements for the use of dental CBCT by dentists: a position paper prepared by the European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology.
        Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014; 4320130291
        • Mallya SM
        • Lam EWN.
        White and Pharoah's Oral Radiology.
        8th ed. Elsevier, Maryland Heights, MO2019
      12. Radiological Society of North America. CBCT odontogenic tumor. Available at: Accessed June 22, 2022.

        • Mamlouk MD
        • Chang PC
        • Saket RR.
        Contextual radiology reporting: a new approach to neuroradiology structured templates.
        AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018; 39: 1406-1414
        • Eberhardt SC
        • Heilbrun ME.
        Radiology report value equation.
        Radiographics. 2018; 38: 1888-1896
        • Powell DK
        • Silberzweig JE.
        State of structured reporting in radiology, a survey.
        Acad Radiol. 2015; 22: 226-233
        • Carter L
        • Farman AG
        • Geist J
        • et al.
        American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology executive opinion statement on performing and interpreting diagnostic cone beam computed tomography.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 106: 561-562
        • White SC
        • Heslop EW
        • Hollender LG
        • et al.
        Parameters of radiologic care: an official report of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001; 91: 498-511
        • Wright B.
        Contemporary medico-legal dental radiology.
        Aust Dent J. 2012; 57: 9-15
        • Miles DA
        • Danforth RA.
        Reporting findings in the cone beam computed tomography volume.
        Dent Clin North Am. 2014; 58: 687-709
        • Singh R
        • Bhalla AS
        • Manchanda S
        • Roychoudhury A.
        Multidetector computed tomography in preoperative planning for temporomandibular joint ankylosis: a pictorial review and proposed structured reporting format.
        Imaging Sci Dent. 2021; 51: 313-321