C.O.V.E.R. (Clinician’s Opinions, Views, and Expectations concerning the radiology Report) Study: A University Hospital Experience



The 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.


A total of 283 clinicians participated in the study with a good response rate. The majority of the statements showed similar results between this Southeast Asian study and the EURO study. The highlights of the study based on the different criteria are as follows:

On Importance: The radiology report is a valued tool in the management of patients in everyday practice; On Clinical Correlation: Clinicians would rather radiologists know about the patients’ medical condition except for a few who think otherwise, due to the possibility of bias in the report; On Referrer’s Satisfaction: Clinicians are satisfied with the reports they receive although the use of common words is more appreciated; On content: Clinicians read the descriptive part of the report and they would like to receive an impression of the pathology at the end; On Structure and Style: The use of simpler style and vocabulary in making radiology reports should be considered for better understanding and also to include explicit technical details of the examination; Open communication with clinicians, faster release of results and specialty-based interpretation of images were also some of the suggestions in this study. Clinicians from both studies also advocate the incorporation of making a radiology report a part of the radiology training.


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 findings to be similar with its European (EURO) counterpart.

  1. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. Practice guidelines & technical standards. 2005.
  2. Bosmans JM. The radiology report: from prose to structured reporting and back again? PhD dissertation. Universiteit Antwerpen (Belgium); 2011.
  3. Grigenti F. Radiological reporting in clinical practice. New York: Springer; 2008.
  4. Hall FM. Language of the radiology report: primer for residents and wayward radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Nov; 175(5):1239-42.
  5. Gunn AJ, Mangano MD, Choy G, Sahani DV. Rethinking the role of the radiologist: enhancing visibility through both traditional and nontraditional reporting practices. Radiographics. 2015 Mar 12; 35(2):416-23.
  6. RSNA Informatics Reporting. [cited 20 April 2015]. Available from: http://radreport.org/about.php
  7. Cramer JA, Eisenmenger LB, Pierson NS, Dhatt HS, Heilbrun ME. Structured and templated reporting: an overview. Appl Radiol. 2014; 43(8):13.
  8. Grieve FM, Plumb AA, Khan SH. Radiology reporting: a general practitioner's perspective. Br J Radiol. 2010 Jan; 83(985):17-22.
  9. Bosmans JM, Neri E, Ratib O, Kahn Jr CE. Structured reporting: a fusion reactor hungry for fuel. Insights Imaging. 2015 Feb 1; 6(1):129-32.
  10. Bosmans JM, Peremans L, De Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM. How do referring clinicians want radiologists to report? Suggestions from the COVER survey. Insights Imaging. 2011 Oct 1; 2(5):577-84.
  11. Bosmans JM, Weyler JJ, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM. The radiology report as seen by radiologists and referring clinicians: results of the COVER and ROVER surveys. Radiology. 2011 Apr; 259(1):184-95.
  12. Bosmans JM. Communication with other physicians – is there a need for structured reports?. Lecture presented at; 2013; MIR, Barcelona
  13. Keen CE. Radiology Reports: What do physicians really want?. 2009 [cited 22 February 2015]. Available from: http://www.auntminnie.com/ index.aspx?sec=prtf&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemId=88676&printpage=true&fsec=rca&fsub=rsna_2008
  14. Keen CE. What clinicians want from radiology reports. 2011 [cited 20 September 2014]. Available from: http://www.auntminnieeurope.com/ index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=605367
  15. Morgan TA, Helibrun ME, Kahn Jr CE. Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. 2014 642-645
  16. Raymond J, Trop I. The practice of ethics in the era of evidence-based radiology. Radiology. 2007 Sep;244(3):643-9.
  17. Kahn Jr CE, Langlotz CP, Burnside ES, Carrino JA, Channin DS, Hovsepian DM, Rubin DL. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology. 2009 Sep;252(3):852-6.
  18. Naik SS, Hanbidge A, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinician preferences regarding style and content. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Mar;176(3):591-8.


The authors declared no conflict of interest that may inappropriately influence bias in the execution of research and publication of this scientific work. Both authors have nothing to disclose.


JMDC and JMLB performed the literature search and wrote the manuscript. JMDC performed the actual survey of the clinicians. Both JMDC and JMLB analyzed the data. Both authors have read, critically reviewed, and approved the final manuscript.

Articles related to the one you are viewing

There are currently no results to show, please try again later

CC BY: Open Access Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/