Discrepancies between Radiology Specialists and Residents in Fracture Detection from Musculoskeletal Radiographs
Huhtanen, Jarno T.; Nyman, Mikko; Sequeiros, Roberto Blanco; Koskinen, Seppo K.; Pudas, Tomi K.; Kajander, Sami; Niemi, Pekka; Löyttyniemi, Eliisa; Aronen, Hannu J.; Hirvonen, Jussi (2023-10)
Huhtanen, Jarno T.
Nyman, Mikko
Sequeiros, Roberto Blanco
Koskinen, Seppo K.
Pudas, Tomi K.
Kajander, Sami
Niemi, Pekka
Löyttyniemi, Eliisa
Aronen, Hannu J.
Hirvonen, Jussi
10 / 2023
3207
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202311159667
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202311159667
Kuvaus
Peer reviewed
Tiivistelmä
(1) Background: The aim of this study was to compare the competence in appendicular trauma radiograph image interpretation between radiology specialists and residents. (2) Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we collected radiology reports from radiology specialists (N = 506) and residents (N = 500) during 2018–2021. As a reference standard, we used the consensus of two subspecialty-level musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists, who reviewed all original reports. (3) Results: A total of 1006 radiograph reports were reviewed by the two subspecialty-level MSK radiologists. Out of the 1006 radiographs, 41% were abnormal. In total, 67 radiographic findings were missed (6.7%) and 31 findings were overcalled (3.1%) in the original reports. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.86, 0.92, 0.91 and 0.88 respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between radiology specialists’ and residents’ competence in interpretation (p = 0.44). However, radiology specialists reported more subtle cases than residents did (p = 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences between errors made in the morning, evening, or night shifts (p = 0.57). (4) Conclusions: This study found a lack of major discrepancies between radiology specialists and residents in radiograph interpretation, although there were differences between MSK regions and in subtle or obvious radiographic findings. In addition, missed findings found in this study often affected patient treatment. Finally, there are MSK regions where the sensitivity or specificity is below 90%, and these should raise concerns and highlight the need for double reading and should be taken into consideration in radiology education.
Kokoelmat
- TUNICRIS-julkaisut [19020]