Back

Adoption of Guided Structured Reporting in Routine Radiological Practice: A Six-Week Multi-Site Implementation Study in the UAE

Lorenz, D.; Jansen, S.; Knoche, J.; Wolf-Sebottendorff, R.; Awad, H. J.; Toker, I.

2026-05-22 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.05.20.26353646 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. Guided structured reporting has been proposed to address the limited availability of structured data in radiology, yet empirical evidence on its real-world adoption across users and imaging modalities remains scarce. Objective. To describe the adoption dynamics of a guided structured reporting system across multiple users and imaging modalities during a six-week implementation period. Methods. Retrospective observational study at two public tertiary hospitals in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. A guided structured reporting system was deployed for computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and mammography. Seven radiologists participated. The primary outcome was active in-software reporting time, recorded via system logs of mouse and keyboard interaction. Temporal trends in median reporting time per modality and individual user trajectories were analysed descriptively. After predefined data cleaning, 126 reports were included (84 CT, 27 MRI, 15 mammography). Results. Active in-software reporting time decreased across all modalities. Median reporting time fell from 130 s to 56 s for CT, from 383 s to 60 s for MRI, and from 126 s to 46 s for mammography (week 1 to week 6). Individual trajectories showed similar patterns, with the largest reductions during the early implementation phase. Subgroup analyses were limited by small sample sizes. Conclusions. Guided structured reporting was integrated into routine clinical workflows with temporal reductions in active reporting time across users and modalities, providing empirical evidence on the feasibility of workflow-integrated structured reporting in radiological practice.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.