Literature DB >> 30003278

Second opinions in orthopedic oncology imaging: can fellowship training reduce clinically significant discrepancies?

Aleksandr Rozenberg1, Barry E Kenneally2, John A Abraham2, Kristin Strogus2, Johannes B Roedl3, William B Morrison3, Adam C Zoga3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors that lead to significant discrepancies in second-opinion consultation of orthopedic oncology patients, and particularly if musculoskeletal fellowship training can decrease clinically significant discrepancies.
METHODS: A PACS database was queried for secondary reads on outside cross-sectional imaging studies, as requested by orthopedic oncology from 2014 to 2017. Comparison of original and secondary reports was performed using a published seven-point scale that defines clinically significant discrepancies. An online search was performed for each original radiologist to record if a fellowship in musculoskeletal imaging was completed. Additionally, years of post-residency experience, number of Medicare part B patients billed per year (marker of practice volume), and average hierarchical condition category for each radiologist (marker of practice complexity) was recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 571 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 184 cases initially interpreted by an outside fellowship trained musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologist and 387 cases initially interpreted by a non-MSK trained radiologist. The rate of clinically significant discrepancy was 9.2% when initially interpreted by MSK radiologists compared with 27.9% when initially performed by non-MSK radiologists (p < 0.05). After adjustment by both patient characteristics and radiologist characteristics, the likelihood of clinically significant discrepancies was greater for initial interpretations by non-MSK radiologists compared with MSK radiologists (OR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.23-2.49).
CONCLUSION: In orthopedic oncology patients, the rate of clinically significant discrepancies was significantly higher when initially interpreted by non-MSK radiologists compared with MSK radiologists. The lower rate of clinically significant discrepancies demonstrates that subspecialty training may direct more appropriate diagnosis and treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Discrepancy; Fellowship; Musculoskeletal; Oncology; Second opinion

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30003278     DOI: 10.1007/s00256-018-3024-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  28 in total

1.  Preliminary reports in the emergency department: is a subspecialist radiologist more accurate than a radiology resident?

Authors:  Barton F Branstetter; Matthew B Morgan; Chadd E Nesbit; Jinnah A Phillips; David M Lionetti; Paul J Chang; Jeffrey D Towers
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Another unpaid second opinion.

Authors:  Richard Duszak
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Factors affecting attending agreement with resident early readings of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the head, neck, and spine.

Authors:  Chris Sistrom; Lori Deitte
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value?

Authors:  G M Briggs; P A Flynn; M Worthington; I Rennie; C S McKinstry
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2008-04-22       Impact factor: 2.350

5.  Providing formal reports for outside imaging and the rate of repeat imaging.

Authors:  Michael T Lu; Wyatt M Tellis; David E Avrin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Second-Opinion Subspecialty Consultations in Musculoskeletal Radiology.

Authors:  Majid Chalian; Filippo Del Grande; Rashmi S Thakkar; Sahar F Jalali; Avneesh Chhabra; John A Carrino
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Second opinion interpretations by specialty radiologists at a pediatric hospital: rate of disagreement and clinical implications.

Authors:  Christopher Eakins; Wendy D Ellis; Sumit Pruthi; David P Johnson; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Chang Yu; J Herman Kan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Reinterpretation of cross-sectional images in patients with head and neck cancer in the setting of a multidisciplinary cancer center.

Authors:  Laurie A Loevner; Adina I Sonners; Brian J Schulman; Kerstin Slawek; Randal S Weber; David I Rosenthal; Gul Moonis; Ara A Chalian
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  Quality and Value of Subspecialty Reinterpretation of Thoracic CT Scans of Patients Referred to a Tertiary Cancer Center.

Authors:  Brett W Carter; Jeremy J Erasmus; Mylene T Truong; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Wayne Hofstetter; Ryan Clarke; Reginald F Munden; Joseph R Steele
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Effects of training and experience in interpretation of emergency body CT scans.

Authors:  R J Wechsler; C M Spettell; A B Kurtz; A S Lev-Toaff; E J Halpern; L N Nazarian; R I Feld; L Needleman; A A Alexander
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

1.  What does the orthopaedic surgeon want in the radiology report?

Authors:  Karthikeyan P Iyengar; Vivien Qi Jun Ngo; Vijay Kumar Jain; Neeraj Ahuja; Zuned Hakim; Chetan Sangani
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-07-24

Review 2.  Quantitative Imaging and Radiomics in Multiple Myeloma: A Potential Opportunity?

Authors:  Alberto Stefano Tagliafico; Alida Dominietto; Liliana Belgioia; Cristina Campi; Daniela Schenone; Michele Piana
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 2.430

3.  Current status of MSK radiology training: an international survey by the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR) Young Club.

Authors:  Domenico Albano; Danoob Dalili; Florian A Huber; Ziga Snoj; Ana Vieira; Carmelo Messina
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-09-09
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.