THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS

Ucok, Cemile Ozlem; ALTUNKAYNAK, Bülent; PEKER, İlkay; ÖZDEDE, Melih

doi:10.7126/cumudj. 414128

THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS

Melih ÖZDEDE, (Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Dentomaksillofasiyal Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Denizli, Türkiye)

İlkay PEKER, (Gazi Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Dentomaksillofasiyal Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Bülent ALTUNKAYNAK, (Gazi Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, İstatistik Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye)

Özlem ÜÇOK (Gazi Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Dentomaksillofasiyal Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

0 0

Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 21 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 379 - 386 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.7126/cumudj. 414128 İndeks Tarihi: 15-12-2020

THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS

Öz:

Objectives: Radiology reports are the most importantmethod of communication between the clinician and theradiologist. In dentomaxillofacial radiology, cone-beamcomputed tomography (CBCT) reporting is a newsubject. The purpose of this study was to evaluate thesatisfaction and expectations of dentists from CBCTreporting as well as contributing to standardization andimprovement in the quality of CBCT reports.Materials and Methods: Dentists were invited toparticipate in the survey by e-mail. The participants filledout a survey with their demographic data and respondedto 14 questions regarding CBCT reports. The responsesregarding gender, age, title, institution, and departmentwere analysed and compared with chi-square tests.Results: In total, 185 dentists (97 females and 88 males)participated in the study. Participants reported that theadequacy level of the reports were mostly moderate(N:87; 47%) and that the source of adequate reports wasuniversity hospitals (N:91; 49.2%). Fifty-seven percent ofthe surveyors (N:106) reported that they needed aconsultant radiologist in clinical practice on a part timebasis. There was a statistically significant difference(p<0.05) between participants’ genders, age groups, titles,and departments regarding the source of the adequatereports.Conclusion: The results of this study showed that mostof the dentists were not satisfied about the proficiency ofCBCT reports. More than half of those surveyed thoughtthat “not reading” the radiology reports might give thema legal liability. Most dentists wanted to consult with theradiologist before and after patient examinations.

Anahtar Kelime:

Diş Hekimlerinin Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi Raporlarına Yönelik Algı ve Tutumları

Öz:

Amaç: Radyoloji raporları klinisyen ve radyolog arasındaki en önemli iletişim yöntemidir. Diş hekimliği radyolojisinde, konik-ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) raporlaması yeni bir konudur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, KIBT raporlarından diş hekimlerinin memnuniyet ve beklentilerini değerlendirmek, aynı zamanda KIBT raporlarının kalitesinde iyileştirmeye ve raporların standardizasyonuna katkıda bulunmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Diş hekimleri hazırlanan ankete eposta yoluyla davet edildi. Katılımcılar, demografik bilgilerini ve KIBT raporlarıyla ilgili 14 sorudan oluşan bir anketi doldurdu. Cinsiyet, yaş, unvan, çalıştığı kurum ve branşlara göre verilen cevaplar analiz edilerek ki-kare testiyle karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmaya toplam 185 diş hekimi (97 kadın ve 88 erkek) katıldı. Katılımcılar, raporların yeterlilik düzeyinin çoğunlukla orta düzeyde (N: 87; %47) olduğunu ve yeterli raporların kaynağının üniversite hastaneleri olduğunu belirtmiştir (N: 91; %49,2). Çoğu diş hekimi (N: 106; %57) klinik uygulamalarda yarı zamanlı olarak bir radyoloji uzmanına ihtiyaç duyduklarını bildirmiştir. Yeterli olarak görülen raporların kaynağı ile katılımcıların cinsiyetleri, yaş grupları, unvanları ve branşları arasında ilgili istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark vardı (p <0,05). Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, diş hekimlerinin çoğunun KIBT raporlarının yeterliliğinden memnun olmadıklarını göstermiştir. Ankete katılanların yarısından fazlası, radyoloji raporlarının “okunmamasının” kendilerine yasal sorumluluk doğurabileceğini düşünmüştür. Çoğu diş hekimi, hastaları incelemelerinden önce ve sonra radyoloji uzmanına danışmak istemiştir

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik

1. Dogan N, Varlibas ZN, Erpolat OP. Radiological report: expectations of clinicians. Diagn Interv Radiol 2010; 16:179–185.
2. Summers JB, Kaminski J. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:1197.
3. Berlin L. Radiology reports. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:943–946.
4. Kahn CE Jr, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES, et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 2009; 252:852–856.
5. Turkish Society of Radiology Qualification Board, Standards and Guide Committee, Traditional Radiology Report Written Guideline Document No. 001:2008.
6. Reiner BI, Knight N, Siegel EL. Radiology reporting, past, present, and future: the radiologist's perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4:313-319.
7. Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M. Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think. Pediatr Radiol 2000; 30:307-314.
8. Smith PC, Rodrigo AG, Bublitz C, et al. Missing clinical information during primary care visit. JAMA 2005; 293:565-571.
9. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Knight N. The evolution of the radiology report and the development of speech recognition. In: Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Weiss DL. Electronic reporting in the digital medical enterprise. Great Falls, VA: Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, 2003:1-7.
10. 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.
11. Mamlouk MD, Chang PC, Saket RR. Contextual Radiology Reporting: A new approach to neuroradiology structured templates. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018. doi: 10.3174/ajnr. A5697. [Epub ahead of print]
12. European Society of Radiology (ESR). Good practice for radiological reporting. Guidelines from the European Society of Radiology (ESR). Insights into Imaging 2011; 2:93-96.
13. Selim D, Monsour P, Sexton C. Dentomaxillofacial radiology in Australia and dentist satisfaction with radiology reports. Aust Dent J 2018. doi: 10.1111/adj.12642. [Epub ahead of print]
14. Peker I, Ucok O, Kayadugun A. Approaches of dentomaxillofacial and medical radiologists about reporting. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2018; 21:32-39.
15. Srinivasa Babu A, Brooks ML. The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk. Radiographics 2015; 35:547-554.
16. Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP. The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5:626-629.
17. Yesildere FB, Eren CS, Oren E, Erdogan N. Assesment of the clinicians’ expectations from the radiology reports and overall satisfaction with the radiology department in our hospital. Tepecik Egit Hast Derg 2010; 20:131-141.
18. Bosmans JM, Schrans D, Avonts D, De Maeseneer JM. Communication between general practitioners and radiologists: opinions, experience, promises, pitfalls. JBRBTR 2014; 97:325-330.
19. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Pub, 2014:11-12.
20. Sistrom C, Lanier L, Mancuso A. Reporting instruction for radiology residents. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:76-84.
21. Howl-Whitney LJ. Radiology reports: are structured systems the answer? RSNA 2013. Diagnostic Imaging, Practice Management [serial on the Internet]. 2013 Dec 10. Available from: http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/rsna2013/radiology-reports-are-structured-systemsanswer.
22. McLoughlin RF, So CB, Gray RR, Brandt R. Radiology reports: how much descriptive detail is enough? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165:803-806.
23. Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:591- 598.
24. Plumb AA, Grieve FM, Khan SH. Survey of hospital clinicians' preferences regarding the format of radiology reports. Clin Radiol 2009; 64:386-396.

APA	ÖZDEDE M, PEKER İ, ALTUNKAYNAK B, Ucok C (2018). THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. , 379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
Chicago	ÖZDEDE Melih,PEKER İlkay,ALTUNKAYNAK Bülent,Ucok Cemile Ozlem THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. (2018): 379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
MLA	ÖZDEDE Melih,PEKER İlkay,ALTUNKAYNAK Bülent,Ucok Cemile Ozlem THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. , 2018, ss.379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
AMA	ÖZDEDE M,PEKER İ,ALTUNKAYNAK B,Ucok C THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. . 2018; 379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
Vancouver	ÖZDEDE M,PEKER İ,ALTUNKAYNAK B,Ucok C THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. . 2018; 379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
IEEE	ÖZDEDE M,PEKER İ,ALTUNKAYNAK B,Ucok C "THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS." , ss.379 - 386, 2018. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
ISNAD	ÖZDEDE, Melih vd. "THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS". (2018), 379-386. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj. 414128

APA	ÖZDEDE M, PEKER İ, ALTUNKAYNAK B, Ucok C (2018). THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal , 21(4), 379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
Chicago	ÖZDEDE Melih,PEKER İlkay,ALTUNKAYNAK Bülent,Ucok Cemile Ozlem THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 21, no.4 (2018): 379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
MLA	ÖZDEDE Melih,PEKER İlkay,ALTUNKAYNAK Bülent,Ucok Cemile Ozlem THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal , vol.21, no.4, 2018, ss.379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
AMA	ÖZDEDE M,PEKER İ,ALTUNKAYNAK B,Ucok C THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal . 2018; 21(4): 379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
Vancouver	ÖZDEDE M,PEKER İ,ALTUNKAYNAK B,Ucok C THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal . 2018; 21(4): 379 - 386. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
IEEE	ÖZDEDE M,PEKER İ,ALTUNKAYNAK B,Ucok C "THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS." Cumhuriyet Dental Journal , 21, ss.379 - 386, 2018. 10.7126/cumudj. 414128
ISNAD	ÖZDEDE, Melih vd. "THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF DENTISTS TOWARDS CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY REPORTS". Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 21/4 (2018), 379-386. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj. 414128