Literature DB >> 8290172

Lung scan reports: interpretation by clinicians.

H W Gray1, J H McKillop, R G Bessent.   

Abstract

A questionnaire was sent to 217 consultant physicians in Scotland who were likely to encounter pulmonary embolism (PE) in their daily practice. Replies were received from 194 (89%). Only 34% of physicians understood that a normal lung scan made PE highly unlikely, while 65% considered a low probability scan equivalent to an uncertain diagnosis. This pattern of interpretation of lung scan reports was confirmed by a question on post-test management. After a normal lung scan report, 31% of physicians were uncertain about the diagnosis and this uncertainty increased to 37% for a low probability scan report. This survey has shown misunderstanding by a significant number of physicians of the risk of PE indicated by normal and low probability lung scan reports. It underlines the need for individuals reporting the test to provide informed guidance for clinical staff following ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) imaging. It may point in addition to a need for a more easily understood style of reporting of lung scans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8290172     DOI: 10.1097/00006231-199311000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nucl Med Commun        ISSN: 0143-3636            Impact factor:   1.690


  2 in total

1.  A traditionally administered short course failed to improve medical students' diagnostic performance. A quantitative evaluation of diagnostic thinking.

Authors:  Yoshinori Noguchi; Kunihiko Matsui; Hiroshi Imura; Masatomo Kiyota; Tsuguya Fukui
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  V/Q scintigraphy: alive, well and equal to the challenge of CT angiography.

Authors:  Leonard M Freeman; Linda B Haramati
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.236

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.