PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) requires synoptic reporting of all tumor excisions.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of different methods of generating synoptic reports.
METHODS: Completeness, amendment rates, rate of timely ordering of ancillary studies (KRAS in T4/N1 colon carcinoma), and structured data file extraction were compared for four different synoptic report generating methods.
RESULTS: Use of the printed tumor protocols directly from the CAP website had the lowest completeness (84%) and highest amendment (1.8%) rates. Reformatting these protocols was associated with higher completeness (94%, P < 0.001) and reduced amendment (1%, P = 0.20) rates. Extraction into a structured data file was successful 93% of the time. Word-based macros improved completeness (98% vs. 94%, P < 0.001) but not amendment rates (1.5%). KRAS was ordered before sign out 89% of the time. In contrast, a web-based product with a reminder flag when items were missing, an embedded flag for data extraction, and a reminder to order KRAS when appropriate resulted in improved completeness (100%, P = 0.005), amendment rates (0.3%, P = 0.03), KRAS ordering before sign out (100%, P = 0.23), and structured data extraction (100%, P < 0.001) without reducing the speed (P = 0.34) or accuracy (P = 1.00) of data extraction by the reader.
CONCLUSIONS: Completeness, amendment rates, ancillary test ordering rates, and data extraction rates vary significantly with the method used to construct the synoptic report. A web-based method compares favorably with all other methods examined and does not reduce reader usability.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of different methods of generating synoptic reports.
METHODS: Completeness, amendment rates, rate of timely ordering of ancillary studies (KRAS in T4/N1 colon carcinoma), and structured data file extraction were compared for four different synoptic report generating methods.
RESULTS: Use of the printed tumor protocols directly from the CAP website had the lowest completeness (84%) and highest amendment (1.8%) rates. Reformatting these protocols was associated with higher completeness (94%, P < 0.001) and reduced amendment (1%, P = 0.20) rates. Extraction into a structured data file was successful 93% of the time. Word-based macros improved completeness (98% vs. 94%, P < 0.001) but not amendment rates (1.5%). KRAS was ordered before sign out 89% of the time. In contrast, a web-based product with a reminder flag when items were missing, an embedded flag for data extraction, and a reminder to order KRAS when appropriate resulted in improved completeness (100%, P = 0.005), amendment rates (0.3%, P = 0.03), KRAS ordering before sign out (100%, P = 0.23), and structured data extraction (100%, P < 0.001) without reducing the speed (P = 0.34) or accuracy (P = 1.00) of data extraction by the reader.
CONCLUSIONS: Completeness, amendment rates, ancillary test ordering rates, and data extraction rates vary significantly with the method used to construct the synoptic report. A web-based method compares favorably with all other methods examined and does not reduce reader usability.
摘要：
背景：美国病理学家学院（CAP）要求对所有肿瘤切除进行天气报告。
目的：比较产生天气报告的不同方法的性能。
方法：完整性，修正率，及时订购辅助研究的比率（T4/N1结肠癌的KRAS），比较了四种不同的天气报告生成方法和结构化数据文件的提取。
结果：直接从CAP网站使用打印的肿瘤方案具有最低的完整性（84％）和最高的修正率（1.8％）。重新格式化这些协议与更高的完整性相关(94%，P<0.001)和减少的修正(1%，P=0.20）费率。提取到结构化数据文件中的成功率为93%。基于单词的宏提高了完整性(98%与94%,P<0.001)，但不是修正率(1.5%)。KRAS是在89％的时间退出之前订购的。相比之下,基于Web的产品，在缺少物品时带有提醒标志，用于数据提取的嵌入式标志，并提醒在适当的时候订购KRAS，从而提高了完整性(100%，P=0.005),修正率(0.3%，P=0.03),KRAS在注销前订购(100%,P=0.23),和结构化数据提取(100%，P<0.001），而不会降低读者提取数据的速度（P=0.34）或准确性（P=1.00）。
结论：完整性，修正率，辅助测试订购率，并且数据提取率随用于构建天气报告的方法而显着变化。基于Web的方法与所检查的所有其他方法相比具有优势，并且不会降低读者的可用性。
目的：比较产生天气报告的不同方法的性能。
方法：完整性，修正率，及时订购辅助研究的比率（T4/N1结肠癌的KRAS），比较了四种不同的天气报告生成方法和结构化数据文件的提取。
结果：直接从CAP网站使用打印的肿瘤方案具有最低的完整性（84％）和最高的修正率（1.8％）。重新格式化这些协议与更高的完整性相关(94%，P<0.001)和减少的修正(1%，P=0.20）费率。提取到结构化数据文件中的成功率为93%。基于单词的宏提高了完整性(98%与94%,P<0.001)，但不是修正率(1.5%)。KRAS是在89％的时间退出之前订购的。相比之下,基于Web的产品，在缺少物品时带有提醒标志，用于数据提取的嵌入式标志，并提醒在适当的时候订购KRAS，从而提高了完整性(100%，P=0.005),修正率(0.3%，P=0.03),KRAS在注销前订购(100%,P=0.23),和结构化数据提取(100%，P<0.001），而不会降低读者提取数据的速度（P=0.34）或准确性（P=1.00）。
结论：完整性，修正率，辅助测试订购率，并且数据提取率随用于构建天气报告的方法而显着变化。基于Web的方法与所检查的所有其他方法相比具有优势，并且不会降低读者的可用性。
