ReviewLa Radiologia medica2015
Errors in neuroradiology.
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 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms using flow-diverter devices: A systematic review.The neuroradiology journal · 2015Pooled it
- Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of spontaneous intracranial hypotension.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Autism spectrum disorder detection using diffusion tensor imaging and machine learning.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Errors in visual search: How can we reduce them?Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Development of a Clinically Applicable Deep Learning System Based on Sparse Training Data to Accurately Detect Acute Intracranial Hemorrhage from Non-enhanced Head Computed Tomography.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Errors in Radiology: A Standard Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Detection and diagnosis of posterior circulation calcification: An interobserver agreement study.European journal of radiology open · 2023Article
- Image-guided percutaneous mechanical disc decompression for herniated discs: a technical note.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
- [Modern radiological diagnostics in spine surgery].Der Orthopade · 2019Review
- Interventional radiology of the thyroid gland: critical review and state of the art.Gland surgery · 2018Review
- Application of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of primitive brain tumours.The neuroradiology journal · 2018Article
- Traumatic fractures in adults: missed diagnosis on plain radiographs in the Emergency Department.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Weight-bearing MRI of the knee: a review of advantages and limits.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging correlates of benign and malignant alterations of the spinal bone marrow.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Dynamic MRI in the evaluation of the spine: state of the art.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Scapular fractures: a common diagnostic pitfall.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Talar fractures: radiological and CT evaluation and classification systems.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Clinical utility of eco-color-power Doppler ultrasonography and contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for interpretation and quantification of joint synovitis: a review.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Developments in the management of bone metastases with interventional radiology.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approximately 4 % of radiologic interpretation in daily practice contains errors and discrepancies that should occur in 2-20 % of reports. Fortunately, most of them are minor degree errors, or if serious, are found and corrected with sufficient promptness; obviously, diagnostic errors become critical when misinterpretation or misidentification should significantly delay medical or surgical treatments. Errors can be summarized into four main categories: observer errors, errors in interpretation, failure to suggest the next appropriate procedure, failure to communicate in a timely and a clinically appropriate manner. Misdiagnosis/misinterpretation percentage should rise up in emergency setting and in the first moments of the learning curve, as in residency. Para-physiological and pathological pitfalls in neuroradiology include calcification and brain stones, pseudofractures, and enlargement of subarachnoid or epidural spaces, ventricular system abnormalities, vascular system abnormalities, intracranial lesions or pseudolesions, and finally neuroradiological emergencies. In order to minimize the possibility of error, it is important to be aware of various presentations of pathology, obtain clinical information, know current practice guidelines, review after interpreting a diagnostic study, suggest follow-up studies when appropriate, communicate significant abnormal findings appropriately and in a timely fashion directly with the treatment team.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26183038What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.