Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä aineisto 
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

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

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
Katso/Avaa
HuhtanenJarnoTEtAl2023DiscrepanciesBetweenRadiologySpecialistsAndResidents.pdf (4.494Mb)
Lataukset: 

MDPI
doi:10.3390/diagnostics13203207
URI
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/20/3207
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2025082787916
Tiivistelmä

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the competence in appendicular trauma radiograph image interpretation between radiology specialists and residents.
 
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.

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).
 
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
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet [27094]

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Tämä kokoelma

JulkaisuajatTekijätNimekkeetAsiasanatTiedekuntaLaitosOppiaineYhteisöt ja kokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste