Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
False-negative findings in radiological reports can lead to serious adverse patient outcomes. We determined the frequency and tendency of false-negative findings in radiological reports by searching for words related to “visible in retrospect”.
Methods
In the period of 34 months, we extracted radiological reports containing words related to “visible in retrospect”. Of these reports, we extracted false-negative findings that were not described in past reports and were first detected retrospectively. Misinterpretations were excluded. The occurrences of the terms that we identified were analyzed by all examinations, modality, month, and anatomical and lesion classifications were analyzed.
Results
Of the 135,251 examinations, 941 reports (0.71%) with 962 findings were detected, with an average of 1.4 findings per business day. By modality, 713 of 81,899 (0.87%) CT examinations, 208 of 36,174 (0.57%) MR, 34 of 9,585 (0.35%) FDG-PET-CT, 2 of 2,258 (0.09%) digital radiography, and 5 of 5,335 (0.09%) other nuclear medicine examinations were found. By anatomical classification, there were 383 (40%) in chest, 353 (37%) in abdomen, 162 (17%) in head, 42 (4.4%) in face and neck, 9 (0.93%) in extremity, and 13 (1.4%) in others. By lesion classification, we identified 665 (69%) for localized lesion, 170 (18%) for vascular lesion, 83 (8.6%) for inflammatory lesion, 14 (1.5%) for traumatic lesion, 12 (1.2%) for organ dysfunction, 11 (1.1%) for degenerative lesion, and 7 (0.7%) for the others. Notable high-frequency specific site diseases by modality were 210 (22%) of localized lesions in lung on CT.
Conclusion
Our results demonstrated that missed lung localized lesions on CT, which account for about a fifth of false-negative findings, were the most common false-negative finding.
Funder
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Terumo Foundation for Life Sciences and Arts
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference35 articles.
1. Berlin L. Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany). 2014;1(1):79–84.
2. Brady A, Laoide RO, McCarthy P, McDermott R. Discrepancy and error in radiology: concepts, causes and consequences. Ulst Med J. 2012;81(1):3–9.
3. Waite S, Grigorian A, Alexander RG, Macknik SL, Carrasco M, Heeger DJ, et al. Analysis of perceptual expertise in radiology—current knowledge and a new perspective. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13:213.
4. Brigham LR, Mansouri M, Abujudeh HH. JOURNAL CLUB: radiology report addenda: a self-report approach to error identification, quantification, and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(6):1230–9.
5. Kim YW, Mansfield LT. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(3):465–70.