Reporting MRI of the Knee

Objectives: Radiology reports are essential for patient care because referring physicians depend on them for decisions about appropriate patient management. Unstructured narrative reports frequently lack clarity and complicate the identification of key information needed for therapeutic decisions. This investigation aimed to evaluate the usefulness and acceptance of different structured/standardized reporting models for knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods: Eight different models of MRI reports of standard knee studies were presented to 50 orthopaedic surgeons for evaluation. Suggested report models ranged from providing a purely narrative text organization to different grades of text structure, specification, and standardization, and finally a completely structured reporting template. Orthopaedic surgeons were asked to evaluate different models with respect to structure, clarity, compactness, and usefulness in their clinical setting by using a 5-point score ranging from very useful (5 points) to less useful (1 point).

Results: The most preferred reporting model (mean score: 4.4) consisted of short sections for clinical information and technique; a findings section of condensed structured text, broken down to four anatomical compartments (intercondylar, medial, lateral, and patellofemoral); and a short conclusion section. A similar reporting model with a numerically organized section of only abnormal findings showed a mean score of 4.2. A completely structured reporting template was rated with a score of 2.6 and a purely narrative report with a score of 2.2.

Conclusion: Reporting of MR studies of the knee should consider the needs of referring orthopaedic surgeons. Structured standardized reporting organized in short anatomically subdivided sections, condensed text, and a short meaningful conclusion is preferable to reporting templates and narrative reporting.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.