Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 12 , Pages 1196-1199, December 2008

Frequency and Spectrum of Errors in Final Radiology Reports Generated With Automatic Speech Recognition Technology

  • Leslie E. Quint, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author and reprints: Leslie E. Quint, MD, University of Michigan Health System, Department of Radiology, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0030
  • ,
  • Douglas J. Quint, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • James D. Myles, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Purpose

Automatic speech recognition technology has a high frequency of transcription errors, necessitating careful proofreading and report editing. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and spectrum of significant dictation errors in finalized radiology reports generated with speech recognition technology.

Methods

All 265 radiology reports that were reviewed in preparation for 12 consecutive weekly multidisciplinary thoracic oncology group conferences were examined for significant dictation errors; reports were compared with the corresponding imaging studies. In addition, departmental radiologists were surveyed regarding their estimates of overall and individual report error rates.

Results

Two hundred six of 265 (78%) reports contained no significant errors, and 59 (22%) contained errors. Report error rates by individual radiologists ranged from 0% to 100%. There were no significant differences in error rates between native and nonnative English speakers (P > .8) or between reports dictated by faculty members alone and those dictated by trainees and signed by faculty members (P > .3). The most frequent types of errors were wrong-word substitution, nonsense phrases, and missing words. Fifty-five of 88 radiologists (63%) believed that overall error rates did not exceed 10%, and 67 of 88 radiologists (76%) believed that their own individual error rates did not exceed 10%.

Conclusions

More than 20% of our reports contained potentially confusing errors, and most radiologists believed that report error rates were much lower than they actually were. Knowledge of the frequency and spectrum of errors should raise awareness of this issue and facilitate methods for report improvement.

Key Words: Automatic speech recognition, error rate, radiology report

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This project was supported by grant UL1RR024986 from the National Center for Research Resources. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

PII: S1546-1440(08)00361-X

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2008.07.005

Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 12 , Pages 1196-1199, December 2008