C.O.V.E.R. (Clinician’s Opinions, Views, and Expectations concerning the radiology Report) Study: A University Hospital Experience
Rattachement africain : ph, be. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
PurposeThe study seeks to examine if radiology reports at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital (USTH) meet referring physicians' preferences pertaining to the following parameters of a well-composed radiology report: Importance, Clinical correlation, Referrer's satisfaction, Content, Structure and Style.It also aims to compare outcomes from this region with its European (EURO) counterpart to highlight possible regional differences in preferences.Methods and Materials A 41-item survey was distributed among consultants and fellows at USTH.Respondents graded their level of agreement using a Likert scale.A free text area was for comments, opinions, and/or suggestions on improving the radiology report.Reponses were collated, statistically analyzed, and compared with those of the EURO study.The study was approved by the hospital's Review Board and voluntary consent was obtained for each participant. The USTH C.O.V.E.R. StudyConclusion The radiology reports generated from USTH were able to meet referring physicians' preferences, providing substantial information that is valued as an essential part of patient management.Outcomes from this study showed the majority of the fi ndings to be similar with its European (EURO) counterpart.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- C.O.V.E.R. (Clinician’s Opinions, Views, and Expectations concerning the radiology Report) Study: A University Hospital Experience
- Date Crossref
- 01/04/2018
- Éditeur
- Faculty Of Medicine And Surgery - University Of Santo Tomas - Manila
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.