Literature DB >> 3772618

Clinical significance of discrepancies in roentgenographic film interpretation in an acute walk-in area.

D A Snow.   

Abstract

To determine the clinical significance of discrepancies in roentgenographic film interpretation, housestaff's interpretations of 248 outpatient x-rays obtained in a walk-in/emergency room area were compared with the interpretations by radiologists. There was complete agreement for 134/248 (54%) films. Discrepancies for 114 films were classified as potentially significant (n = 28, 25%) or insignificant (n = 86, 75%). Most significant discrepancies (26 of 28) were related to the indication for the film. Most insignificant discrepancies (75 of 86) were unrelated to the film's indication. No discrepancies resulted in serious adverse patient outcomes, although one resulted in delayed treatment of a fractured humerus, one resulted in delay of antibiotic treatment, and three resulted in antibiotic use that may have been unnecessary. In two cases, the initial treatment plan was changed based on the final radiologist's report. These results indicate that while discrepancies in film interpretation are frequent, their clinical impact may be small.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3772618     DOI: 10.1007/bf02596206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  9 in total

1.  The clinical history as a factor in roentgenogram interpretation.

Authors:  M H SCHREIBER
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1963-08-03       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Observer error in the interpretation of chest films; an international investigation.

Authors:  A L COCHRANE; L H GARLAND
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1952-09-13       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Accuracy and its relationship to experience in the interpretation of chest radiographs.

Authors:  P G Herman; S J Hessel
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1975 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures.

Authors:  L H GARLAND
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1949-03       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Tuberculosis case finding; a comparison of the effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods.

Authors:  C C BIRKELO; W E CHAMBERLAIN
Journal:  J Am Med Assoc       Date:  1947-02-08

6.  The statistical assessment of the variability in observer perception and description of roentgenographic pulmonary shadows.

Authors:  J Yerushalmy
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1969-12       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  A study of inter- and intra-observer error in reading plain roentgenograms of the hands.

Authors:  J H Bland; A B Soule; F W Van Buskirk; E Brown; R V Clayton
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1969-04

8.  The influence of prior knowledge on visual search strategies during the viewing of chest radiographs.

Authors:  H L Kundel; D J Wright
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1969-08       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Perception--a problem in the grading of sacro-iliac joint radiographs.

Authors:  N Bellamy; L Newhook; P J Rooney; P M Brooks; W P Cockshott; G T Thompson; W W Buchanan
Journal:  Scand J Rheumatol       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 3.641

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.