Efficient and accurate chest X-ray (CXR) reporting is essential in radiology, especially for quickly identifying low-risk cases to prioritize more complex ones. This study investigates the time efficiency of three CXR reporting methods: manual, template-based, and AI-generated, focusing specifically on low-risk CXR evaluations in a radiology department. Results show that manual reporting, which requires free-text documentation, takes significantly longer than other methods, with average mean times per study of 96.4 seconds (RAD1), 91 seconds (RAD2), and 70.8 seconds (RAD3). In contrast, the structured, template-based approach reduced these times to 32.9 seconds (RAD1), 32 seconds (RAD2), and 48.8 seconds (RAD3), representing an average efficiency improvement of 53.93% compared to manual reporting.