Literature DB >> 17411540

Quality and variability in diagnostic radiology.

Hillel R Alpert1, Bruce J Hillman.   

Abstract

Achieving and delivering optimal quality of care in radiology requires continual self-examination by the profession, particularly with regard to technical, interpretive, and communication skills. The importance of empirical data pertaining to quality and variability in radiology, the underlying causes of error, and the sources of variability are discussed. Key measures (e.g., receiver operating characteristics, kappa) and approaches (professional audits and peer reviews, surveys, inspections, and risk management programs) used in improvement efforts are reviewed, and data from key studies are highlighted. Diagnostic errors are important because of their connection to outcomes and the wide variability observed with modalities such as chest radiography and mammography.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 17411540     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2003.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  13 in total

1.  Prediction of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with high spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MRI.

Authors:  B Nicolas Bloch; Elizabeth M Genega; Daniel N Costa; Ivan Pedrosa; Martin P Smith; Herbert Y Kressel; Long Ngo; Martin G Sanda; William C Dewolf; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-03       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Reducing error in radiographic interpretation.

Authors:  Kate Alexander
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.008

3.  Bias in Neuroradiology Peer Review: Impact of a "Ding" on "Dinging" Others.

Authors:  P Charkhchi; B Wang; B Caffo; D M Yousem
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Measuring PET Spatial Resolution Using a Cylinder Phantom Positioned at an Oblique Angle.

Authors:  Martin A Lodge; Jeffrey P Leal; Arman Rahmim; John J Sunderland; Eric C Frey
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Reproducibility of CBCT image analysis: a clinical study on intrapersonal and interpersonal errors in bone structure determination.

Authors:  Sigmar Schnutenhaus; Michael Graf; Isabel Doering; Ralph G Luthardt; Heike Rudolph
Journal:  Oral Radiol       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 1.852

6.  Optimizing quality of digital mammographic imaging using Taguchi analysis with an ACR accreditation phantom.

Authors:  Ching-Yuan Chen; Lung-Fa Pan; Fu-Tsai Chiang; Da-Ming Yeh; Lung-Kwang Pan
Journal:  Bioengineered       Date:  2016-07-03       Impact factor: 3.269

7.  Satisfaction of search for subtle skeletal fractures may not be induced by more serious skeletal injury.

Authors:  Kevin S Berbaum; Kevin M Schartz; Robert T Caldwell; George Y El-Khoury; Kenjirou Ohashi; Mark Madsen; Edmund A Franken
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Quantitative Analysis of Neural Foramina in the Lumbar Spine: An Imaging Informatics and Machine Learning Study.

Authors:  Bilwaj Gaonkar; Joel Beckett; Diane Villaroman; Christine Ahn; Matthew Edwards; Steven Moran; Mark Attiah; Diana Babayan; Christopher Ames; J Pablo Villablanca; Noriko Salamon; Alex Bui; Luke Macyszyn
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2019-03-06

9.  Quantitative Analysis of Spinal Canal Areas in the Lumbar Spine: An Imaging Informatics and Machine Learning Study.

Authors:  B Gaonkar; D Villaroman; J Beckett; C Ahn; M Attiah; D Babayan; J P Villablanca; N Salamon; A Bui; L Macyszyn
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.966

Review 10.  Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements.

Authors:  Annette M Schmid; David L Raunig; Colin G Miller; Richard C Walovitch; Robert W Ford; Michael O'Connor; Guenther Brueggenwerth; Josy Breuer; Liz Kuney; Robert R Ford
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 1.778

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.