Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists

被引:72
作者
Abujudeh, Hani H. [1 ,2 ]
Boland, Giles W. [1 ,2 ]
Kaewlai, Rathachai [1 ,2 ]
Rabiner, Pavel [1 ,2 ]
Halpern, Elkarn F. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Gazelle, G. Scott [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Thrall, James H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Radiol, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Sch Med, Boston, MA USA
[3] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Inst Technol Assessment, Boston, MA 02114 USA
关键词
Peer-review system; Radiological error; Discrepancy rate; Computed tomography; Abdomen; Pelvis; ACCURACY; ERROR;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-010-1763-1
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
To assess the discrepancy rate for the interpretation of abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) examinations among experienced radiologists. Ninety abdominal and pelvic CT examinations reported by three experienced radiologists who specialize in abdominal imaging were randomly selected from the radiological database. The same radiologists, blinded to previous interpretation, were asked to re-interpret 60 examinations: 30 of their previous interpretations and 30 interpreted by others. All reports were assessed for the degree of discrepancy between initial and repeat interpretations according to a three-level scoring system: no discrepancy, minor, or major discrepancy. Inter- and intrareader discrepancy rates and causes were evaluated. CT examinations included in the investigation were performed on 90 patients (43 men, mean age 59 years, SD 14, range 19-88) for the following indications: follow-up/evaluation of malignancy (69/90, 77%), pancreatitis (5/90, 6%), urinary tract stone (4/90, 4%) or other (12/90, 13%). Interobserver and intraobserver major discrepancy rates were 26 and 32%, respectively. Major discrepancies were due to missed findings, different opinions regarding interval change of clinically significant findings, and the presence of recommendation. Major discrepancy of between 26 and 32% was observed in the interpretation of abdominal and pelvic CT examinations.
引用
收藏
页码:1952 / 1957
页数:6
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Assessment of Radiologist Performance in the Detection of Lung Nodules: Dependence on the Definition of "Truth" [J].
Armato, Samuel G., III ;
Roberts, Rachael Y. ;
Kocherginsky, Masha ;
Aberle, Denise R. ;
Kazerooni, Ella A. ;
MacMahon, Heber ;
van Beek, Edwin J. R. ;
Yankelevitz, David ;
McLennan, Geoffrey ;
McNitt-Gray, Michael F. ;
Meyer, Charles R. ;
Reeves, Anthony P. ;
Caligiuri, Philip ;
Quint, Leslie E. ;
Sundaram, Baskaran ;
Croft, Barbara Y. ;
Clarke, Laurence P. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2009, 16 (01) :28-38
[2]   Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: Has it improved over the past five decades? [J].
Berlin, Leonard .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 188 (05) :1173-1178
[3]   Extraction of recommendation features in radiology with natural language processing: Exploratory study [J].
Dang, Pragya A. ;
Kalra, Mannudeep K. ;
Blake, Michael A. ;
Schultz, Thomas J. ;
Halpern, Elkan F. ;
Dreyer, Keith J. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2008, 191 (02) :313-320
[4]  
*EUR ORG RES TREAT, 2009, RESP EV CRIT SOL TUM
[5]   Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking [J].
FitzGerald, R .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2005, 15 (08) :1760-1767
[6]  
GARLAND LH, 1959, AMER J ROENTGENOL RA, V82, P25
[7]   Error in radiology [J].
Goddard, P ;
Leslie, A ;
Jones, A ;
Wakeley, C ;
Kabala, J .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2001, 74 (886) :949-951
[8]  
Jackson Valerie P, 2009, J Am Coll Radiol, V6, P21, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.06.011
[9]  
Kohn LT, 2000, ERR IS HUMAN BUILDIN
[10]   The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists [J].
Leslie, A ;
Jones, AJ ;
Goddard, PR .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2000, 73 (874) :1052-1055