Authors: Team Iradix Annette J. Johnson[1], MD, MS Department of Radiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston Salem, NC 27157 e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it I want to thank Dr Schwartz and his colleagues for their very interesting article describing the evaluation of a structured reporting system (SRS) (1). Particular strengths of their study include that they used clinically useful metrics and sought opinions from a variety of medical specialists. They provide good evidence that the use of structured, bulleted formatting improves the quality of reports—particularly the clarity. I think that many radiologists have for some time used templates and/or macros that follow the basic design of what they described in their study, including radiologists who use voice recognition as well as human transcriptionist-based systems. I would like further clarification regarding the functionality of the SRS you tested. The term “SRS” has been used variably in recent literature. Some use “SRS” to describe bulleted report formatting (often standardized according to organ or anatomy) with essentially free-text content within bullets; default pertinent negatives are often included with this type. Others use “SRS” for systems whereby all … References^ Annette J. Johnson (radiology.rsna.org)

Read more: