['The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of coronary atherosclerosis reporting before and after the implementation of a structured reporting chest CT template.', 'A noncardiac, noncontrast chest CT structured reporting template was developed and mandated for department-wide use at a large academic center. The template included the statement "There are no coronary artery calcifications." All noncardiac, noncontrast chest CT examinations reported over 3 days, 1 month after template implementation (structured template group), and from a 3-day period 1 year prior (control group) were retrospectively collected. Final radiology reports were reviewed and designated positive or negative for coronary calcifications. CT images were reviewed in consensus by 2 radiologists, who scored each case for the presence or absence of coronary calcifications, blinded to the original report. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson χ(2) and Fisher exact tests.', 'Sixty-five percent (69 of 106) of structured template group and 58% (62 of 106) of control group cases had coronary calcifications. Reports from the structured template group were more likely to correctly state the presence or absence of coronary atherosclerosis compared with those from the control group (96.2% vs 85.8%; odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-13.1; P\xa0=\xa0.008). Structured template group reports were less likely to be falsely negative compared with control group reports (3.8% vs 11.7%; odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-10.8; P\xa0= .03).'] Does a default normal chest CT structured reporting field for coronary calcifications cause excessive false-negative reporting?