BACKGROUND: With the increase in the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (necessitating real-time interpretation), it is unknown whether post-ERCP radiologist reporting is still necessary or helpful. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of discrepancy of results, and the rate of clinically relevant misses and additions, by the radiology report in a blinded setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the procedure and blinded postprocedure radiology reports of 100 consecutive ERCP cases was performed. A list of clinically relevant pathology and subgroups was made a priori. Discrepancies are described as proportions, with 95% CIs. The radiology yield regarding pathology that was clearly demonstrated at ERCP (bile leaks and stones removed) was calculated. Clinical follow-up was used to clarify additional abnormalities reported by radiology. RESULTS: Clinically relevant discrepancies in report pairs occurred in 29.0% of cases (95% CI 20% to 39%), or 40.0% if discrepancies regarding bile duct dilation are considered (95% CI 30% to 50%). In 15 of 30 cases (50.0% [95% CI 31% to 69%]) in which bile duct stones were removed, the radiologist did not report a stone. The radiologist did not report five of eight bile leaks (62.5% [95% CI 24% to 91%]). In seven cases (7.0% [95% CI 2.9% to 13.9%]), an additional abnormality was noted by radiology, including a biliary stricture, bile duct and pancreatic duct stones, as well as sclerosing cholangitis. However, during a mean follow-up period of 5.6 months, it appeared that these radiology interpretations were likely incorrect. Discrepancy rates did not vary among the ERCP attendings or by radiology volume. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between endoscopists' and radiologists' ERCP reports are common. Blinded radiology interpretation frequently misses important pathology, and falsely positive additional diagnoses may be made.
BACKGROUND: With the increase in the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (necessitating real-time interpretation), it is unknown whether post-ERCP radiologist reporting is still necessary or helpful. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of discrepancy of results, and the rate of clinically relevant misses and additions, by the radiology report in a blinded setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the procedure and blinded postprocedure radiology reports of 100 consecutive ERCP cases was performed. A list of clinically relevant pathology and subgroups was made a priori. Discrepancies are described as proportions, with 95% CIs. The radiology yield regarding pathology that was clearly demonstrated at ERCP (bile leaks and stones removed) was calculated. Clinical follow-up was used to clarify additional abnormalities reported by radiology. RESULTS: Clinically relevant discrepancies in report pairs occurred in 29.0% of cases (95% CI 20% to 39%), or 40.0% if discrepancies regarding bile duct dilation are considered (95% CI 30% to 50%). In 15 of 30 cases (50.0% [95% CI 31% to 69%]) in which bile duct stones were removed, the radiologist did not report a stone. The radiologist did not report five of eight bile leaks (62.5% [95% CI 24% to 91%]). In seven cases (7.0% [95% CI 2.9% to 13.9%]), an additional abnormality was noted by radiology, including a biliary stricture, bile duct and pancreatic duct stones, as well as sclerosing cholangitis. However, during a mean follow-up period of 5.6 months, it appeared that these radiology interpretations were likely incorrect. Discrepancy rates did not vary among the ERCP attendings or by radiology volume. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between endoscopists' and radiologists' ERCP reports are common. Blinded radiology interpretation frequently misses important pathology, and falsely positive additional diagnoses may be made.
Authors: M L Freeman; D B Nelson; S Sherman; G B Haber; M B Fennerty; J A DiSario; M E Ryan; P P Kortan; P J Dorsher; M J Shaw; M E Herman; J T Cunningham; J P Moore; W B Silverman; J C Imperial; R D Mackie; P A Jamidar; P N Yakshe; G M Logan; A M Pheley Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: S Loperfido; G Angelini; G Benedetti; F Chilovi; F Costan; F De Berardinis; M De Bernardin; A Ederle; P Fina; A Fratton Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M L Freeman; J A DiSario; D B Nelson; M B Fennerty; J G Lee; D J Bjorkman; C S Overby; J Aas; M E Ryan; G S Bochna; M J Shaw; H W Snady; R V Erickson; J P Moore; J P Roel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: F Prat; G Amouyal; P Amouyal; G Pelletier; J Fritsch; A D Choury; C Buffet; J P Etienne Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-01-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Noor L Bekkali; Sean Burmeister; Yi Dong; Simon M Everett; Michael Hocke; Andre Ignee; Wei On; Srisha Hebbar; Kofi Oppong; Siyu Sun; Christian Jenssen; Barbara Braden Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.628