Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 8/2010

01-08-2010 | Gastrointestinal

Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists

Authors: Hani H. Abujudeh, Giles W. Boland, Rathachai Kaewlai, Pavel Rabiner, Elkarn F. Halpern, G. Scott Gazelle, James H. Thrall

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To assess the discrepancy rate for the interpretation of abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) examinations among experienced radiologists.

Methods

Ninety abdominal and pelvic CT examinations reported by three experienced radiologists who specialize in abdominal imaging were randomly selected from the radiological database. The same radiologists, blinded to previous interpretation, were asked to re-interpret 60 examinations: 30 of their previous interpretations and 30 interpreted by others. All reports were assessed for the degree of discrepancy between initial and repeat interpretations according to a three-level scoring system: no discrepancy, minor, or major discrepancy. Inter- and intrareader discrepancy rates and causes were evaluated.

Results

CT examinations included in the investigation were performed on 90 patients (43 men, mean age 59 years, SD 14, range 19–88) for the following indications: follow-up/evaluation of malignancy (69/90, 77%), pancreatitis (5/90, 6%), urinary tract stone (4/90, 4%) or other (12/90, 13%). Interobserver and intraobserver major discrepancy rates were 26 and 32%, respectively. Major discrepancies were due to missed findings, different opinions regarding interval change of clinically significant findings, and the presence of recommendation.

Conclusions

Major discrepancy of between 26 and 32% was observed in the interpretation of abdominal and pelvic CT examinations.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington, DC Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
2.
go back to reference Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B (2000) Epidemiology of medical error. BMJ 320:774–777CrossRefPubMed Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B (2000) Epidemiology of medical error. BMJ 320:774–777CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH et al (2009) RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol 6:21–25CrossRefPubMed Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH et al (2009) RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol 6:21–25CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference FitzGerald R (2005) Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking. Eur Radiol 15:1760–1767CrossRefPubMed FitzGerald R (2005) Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking. Eur Radiol 15:1760–1767CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A, Wakeley C, Kabala J (2001) Error in radiology. Br J Radiol 74:949–951PubMed Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A, Wakeley C, Kabala J (2001) Error in radiology. Br J Radiol 74:949–951PubMed
6.
go back to reference Berlin L (2007) Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1173–1178CrossRefPubMed Berlin L (2007) Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1173–1178CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Armato SG 3rd, Roberts RY, Kocherginsky M et al (2009) Assessment of radiologist performance in the detection of lung nodules: dependence on the definition of “truth”. Acad Radiol 16:28–38CrossRefPubMed Armato SG 3rd, Roberts RY, Kocherginsky M et al (2009) Assessment of radiologist performance in the detection of lung nodules: dependence on the definition of “truth”. Acad Radiol 16:28–38CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Melvin C, Bodley R, Booth A, Meagher T, Record C, Savage P (2004) Managing errors in radiology: a working model. Clin Radiol 59:841–845CrossRefPubMed Melvin C, Bodley R, Booth A, Meagher T, Record C, Savage P (2004) Managing errors in radiology: a working model. Clin Radiol 59:841–845CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Robinson PJ, Wilson D, Coral A, Murphy A, Verow P (1999) Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs. Br J Radiol 72:323–330PubMed Robinson PJ, Wilson D, Coral A, Murphy A, Verow P (1999) Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs. Br J Radiol 72:323–330PubMed
10.
go back to reference Garland LH (1959) Studies on the accuracy of diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 82:25–38PubMed Garland LH (1959) Studies on the accuracy of diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 82:25–38PubMed
11.
go back to reference Leslie A, Jones AJ, Goddard PR (2000) The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists. Br J Radiol 73:1052–1055PubMed Leslie A, Jones AJ, Goddard PR (2000) The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists. Br J Radiol 73:1052–1055PubMed
12.
go back to reference Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M (2004) Disagreement in interpretation: a method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 1:212–217CrossRefPubMed Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M (2004) Disagreement in interpretation: a method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 1:212–217CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Wong WS, Roubal I, Jackson DB, Paik WN, Wong VK (2005) Outsourced teleradiology imaging services: an analysis of discordant interpretation in 124,870 cases. J Am Coll Radiol 2:478–484CrossRefPubMed Wong WS, Roubal I, Jackson DB, Paik WN, Wong VK (2005) Outsourced teleradiology imaging services: an analysis of discordant interpretation in 124,870 cases. J Am Coll Radiol 2:478–484CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Tieng N, Grinberg D, Li SF (2007) Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents. Am J Emerg Med 25:45–48CrossRefPubMed Tieng N, Grinberg D, Li SF (2007) Discrepancies in interpretation of ED body computed tomographic scans by radiology residents. Am J Emerg Med 25:45–48CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Dang PA, Kalra MK, Blake MA, Schultz TJ, Halpern EF, Dreyer KJ (2008) Extraction of recommendation features in radiology with natural language processing: exploratory study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:313–320CrossRefPubMed Dang PA, Kalra MK, Blake MA, Schultz TJ, Halpern EF, Dreyer KJ (2008) Extraction of recommendation features in radiology with natural language processing: exploratory study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:313–320CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists
Authors
Hani H. Abujudeh
Giles W. Boland
Rathachai Kaewlai
Pavel Rabiner
Elkarn F. Halpern
G. Scott Gazelle
James H. Thrall
Publication date
01-08-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1763-1

Other articles of this Issue 8/2010

European Radiology 8/2010 Go to the issue