Can be more concisely written as:

---

The Flesch-Kinkaid reading grade level on the first sentence is 13.3, but drops to 6.2 on the edited version. That is hyperlucent reporting!

I agree with using incontrovertible abbreviations like “ET tube”, but err on the side of spelling it out. 

I’ve taken to giving only whole and half centimeter increments for ET tubes. Reporting “4 cm” looks cleaner to me than “4.2 cm”. I don’t think I can tell 0.2 cm with any precision, and I’m sure it’s not required. For some reason 4.5 cm or 6.5 cm looks better to me than 4.2 cm or 6.7 cm for example.

For this statement to have meaning, the report reader must know what the chest 

looked like before. If that information is unknown to the reader, they must find out what the prior report said. Or they can read the “Findings” section of the current report to learn what is deemed stable, or skip the reports altogether and do their own image interpretation.

We define hyperlucent as “clearer than usual.” 

Check out the ominous title of this editorial and you see some of my motivation for pursuing hyperlucent radiology.