Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21903915›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2011

Interpretation errors in CT angiography of the head and neck and the benefit of double reading.

K Lian, A Bharatha, R I Aviv, S P Symons

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Errors in neuroradiology.La Radiologia medica · 2015
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K LianDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
A Bharatha
R I Aviv
S P Symons
LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology (Canada) · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeCTA provides high-resolution imaging of the head and neck vasculature but also of the soft tissues and bones. This results in a large volume of information to be interpreted. This study examines interpretation errors with head and neck CTAs and assesses whether double reading reduces miss rates. MATERIALS AND

methodsConsecutive CTAs of the neck and intracranial circulation were retrospectively identified and reviewed for vascular and nonvascular findings by a consensus of 2 neuroradiologists. The results were compared with the official report. Significant discrepancies were considered those that would have influenced follow-up or management.

resultsWe reviewed 503 studies; 144 were originally reported by a staff neuroradiologist alone, 209 by staff and diagnostic radiology resident, and 150 by staff and neuroradiology fellow. Twenty-six significant discrepancies were discovered in 20 studies, corresponding to 4.0% of studies with at least 1 miss, and an overall miss rate per study of 5.2%. There was at least 1 miss in 6.3% of studies interpreted by a staff neuroradiologist alone, 3.3% by staff and resident, and 2.7% by staff and fellow. The miss rate differences were not statistically significant. The most common misses were small aneurysms (50% of misses).

conclusionsCTA neck and head datasets are now large, and there is a potential for missed findings. Significant discrepancies can occur with a low but not insignificant rate. Arterial pathology accounted for most discrepancies. This study emphasizes the need for careful systematic scrutiny for both vascular and nonvascular pathology regardless of indication. Double reading reduces error rates.

Indexed as

ArtifactsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngiographyCarotid Artery DiseasesCerebral Arterial DiseasesFemaleHeadHumansImage EnhancementMaleMiddle AgedNeckObserver VariationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID21903915
PMCPMC7964376
OpenAlexW2097131425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.