OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in identifying terminal ileitis in patients with Crohn’s disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 38 consecutive patients with Crohn’s disease who underwent magnetic resonance enterography with DWI in a 3.0 T scanner. The patients were divided into two groups, on the basis of colonoscopy and biopsy findings: active inflammation; and inactive disease. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were determined, as were the magnetic resonance index of activity (MaRIA) and the Clermont score. RESULTS: Of the 38 patients evaluated, 18 (47%) had active inflammation. The patients with active inflammation showed greater restricted diffusion, more pronounced mucosal edema, greater wall thickening, a higher MaRIA, and a higher Clermont score than did those with inactive disease. The level of interobserver agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient) was excellent for the MaRIA and the Clermont score, whereas it was substantial for the ADC values. For identifying colonoscopy-proven inflammation, the best ADC cut-off point was 2.1 × 10⁻³ mm²/s, which had a sensitivity of 88.8% and a specificity of 95.0%, whereas DWI presented an overall accuracy of 89.4%, with a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 90.0%. CONCLUSION: Visual analysis of the DWI sequence has good accuracy in detecting terminal ileitis in patients with Crohn’s disease. In addition, low ADC values have good sensitivity for detecting colonoscopy-proven inflammation.

Keywords: Crohn’s disease; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Inflammation; Ileitis; Intestine, small; Magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect that transitioning from a model of general radiology reporting to one of subspecialized radiology reporting has on report turnaround times (TATs) and on productivity in the radiology department of a hospital in a middle-income country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The reporting workflow in our radiology department was changed from general reporting (any radiologist reporting imaging studies for any specialty) to subspecialized reporting (radiologists exclusively reporting imaging studies that fall within their subspecialty—abdominal, musculoskeletal, cardiothoracic, emergency, or neurological imaging). This was a retrospective study in which we compared general reporting with subspecialized reporting in terms of the following variables: the TAT; the proportions of reports completed within 2 h and within 24 h (TAT-2h and TAT-24h, respectively); and productivity. Data were collected over two 24-month periods (2015–2016 for general reporting and 2017–2018 for subspecialized reporting). RESULTS: A total of 208,516 reports were generated. The median report TAT decreased from 49.1 h and 52.9 h in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 16.1 h and 15.2 h in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001). The TAT-2h also improved, increasing from 8.7% and 7.9% in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 52.0% and 61.3% in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001), as did the TAT-24h, which increased from 12.1% and 14.1% in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to 74.3% and 78.7% in 2017 and 2018, respectively (p < 0.001). Between the two periods, the total number of scans performed increased by 33% (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The implementation of a subspecialized reporting system significantly improved the median TAT for radiology reports, as well as increasing the TAT-2h and TAT-24h, during a time of increased productivity.

Keywords: Radiologists/classification; Medical records/standards; Radiology department, hospital/organization & administration; Radiology information systems/standards; Radiology/organization & administration; Specialization/trends.