Literature DB >> 31820269

Pediatric cervical spine injuries on CT: difference in accuracy of interpretations by pediatric versus non-pediatric radiologists.

Nabil Hassan1, Chloe Butler2, James DeCou3, Teri Crumb3, Stephanie Flohr3, Diann Reischman4, Joseph Junewick5,6,7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the accuracy of interpretation of initial cervical computerized tomography (CCT) by a non-pediatric radiologist (NPR) versus a pediatric radiologist (PR).
METHODS: IRB approval and consent waiver were granted to review all injured children from 2010 to 2014 in the trauma registry with CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine. Patients with negative CCT who subsequently had positive MRI from a single institution comprised the study group. Patients with negative CCT and MRI, matched by age, gender, and severity scores, comprised the control group. The CCTs from both groups were initially interpreted at the time of service by a NPR. Subsequently, a single PR with 20 years of experience blinded to clinical/imaging data reinterpreted these CCT examinations. CT interpretations were then compared with MRI results and evaluated for statistical significance using SSPS software. The data analysis utilized summary statistics, two-tailed binomial test, and univariate χ2 test. Significance for all comparisons was assessed at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: The study group was comprised of the 21 patients with negative CCT and positive MRI. Of the cohort included, 76% (16) were male and 24% (5) were female. The age range was 1 month-17 years, with a mean age of 9.7 years. CCT interpretation by NPR had a specificity of 91.7% (sensitivity 71.2%, positive predictive value 81.3%, and negative predictive value 86.3%) compared with results of MRI. Six of the 21 negative CCTs were interpreted by the PR as positive, mainly craniocervical junction injuries, and confirmed by MRI (28.6%, P < .001 compared with the NPR); no control CCT was interpreted by the PR as positive (sensitivity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, and negative predictive value 58.3%).
CONCLUSION: In our retrospective study, a pediatric radiologist has improved recognition of pediatric cervical spine injuries on CT compared with non-pediatric radiologist.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical spine injuries; Pediatric radiologist; Pediatric trauma; Pediatrics

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31820269     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-019-01743-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Radiol        ISSN: 1070-3004


  15 in total

1.  Factors associated with cervical spine injury in children after blunt trauma.

Authors:  Julie C Leonard; Nathan Kuppermann; Cody Olsen; Lynn Babcock-Cimpello; Kathleen Brown; Prashant Mahajan; Kathleen M Adelgais; Jennifer Anders; Dominic Borgialli; Aaron Donoghue; John D Hoyle; Emily Kim; Jeffrey R Leonard; Kathleen A Lillis; Lise E Nigrovic; Elizabeth C Powell; Greg Rebella; Scott D Reeves; Alexander J Rogers; Curt Stankovic; Getachew Teshome; David M Jaffe
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 5.721

2.  Computed tomography alone versus computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the identification of occult injuries to the cervical spine: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Christopher M Bono; Kevin J McGuire; Natalie Warholic; Mitchel B Harris
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2010-01

3.  Spectrum of diagnostic errors in cervical spine trauma imaging and their clinical significance.

Authors:  Francesco Alessandrino; Christopher M Bono; Christopher A Potter; Mitchel B Harris; Aaron D Sodickson; Bharti Khurana
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2019-03-31

4.  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

5.  Pediatric trauma care with computed tomography--criteria for CT scanning.

Authors:  Markus Muhm; Tim Danko; Thomas Henzler; Thomas Luiz; Hartmut Winkler; Thomas Ruffing
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2015-07-25

6.  Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.

Authors:  Edward A Sickles; Dulcy E Wolverton; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  An analysis of cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging findings after normal computed tomographic imaging findings in pediatric trauma patients: ten-year experience of a level I pediatric trauma center.

Authors:  Jessie Gargas; Burt Yaszay; Peter Kruk; Tracey Bastrom; David Shellington; Sandeep Khanna
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.313

8.  The value of official reinterpretation of trauma computed tomography scans from referring hospitals.

Authors:  Chinwendu Onwubiko; David P Mooney
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 2.545

9.  The added value of a second read by pediatric radiologists for outside skeletal surveys.

Authors:  Boaz Karmazyn; Matthew R Wanner; Megan B Marine; Luke Tilmans; S Gregory Jennings; Roberta A Hibbard
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2018-10-26

10.  Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging.

Authors:  Michael Mullerad; Hedvig Hricak; Liang Wang; Hui-Ni Chen; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.