Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26116141›Full record

ReviewLa Radiologia medica2015

Errors and malpractice lawsuits in radiology: what the radiologist needs to know.

Francesco Paolo Busardò, Paola Frati, Alessandro Santurro, Simona Zaami, Vittorio Fineschi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in La Radiologia medica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Impact of discrepancies in radiological interpretation on forensic report outcomes: A retrospective study.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Errors in imaging patients in the emergency setting.The British journal of radiology · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Francesco Paolo BusardòDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 336, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Paola Frati
Alessandro Santurro
Simona Zaami
Vittorio Fineschi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All medical specialties dealing with patients include an intrinsic risk in exposing them to issues resulting from human errors. Radiology is not spared from this risk since it includes "decision-making under conditions of uncertainty." In medical imaging, the line between the word "error" and misdiagnosis or discrepancy is very difficult to demarcate, mainly because the diagnostic process is not a binary relation and it is not always possible to establish if a pathological condition is present or not. The error in radiology is strongly related to the diagnostic process; hence, it can be defined as a "diagnostic error" which represents the most common cause of medical malpractice suits against radiologists. In this paper, the authors described the features of errors occurring in radiology, trying to establish their impact and prevalence. Secondly, some data coming from different countries were compared in order to highlight the most frequent causes leading to malpractice lawsuits in radiology and how the phenomenon of malpractice in this field is represented worldwide.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsForensic MedicineHumansMalpracticeRadiologyRisk Factors

Identifiers

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.