Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30929146›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2019

Spectrum of diagnostic errors in cervical spine trauma imaging and their clinical significance.

Francesco Alessandrino, Christopher M Bono, Christopher A Potter, Mitchel B Harris, Aaron D Sodickson, Bharti Khurana

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A two-stage deep learning system for cervical spine fracture diagnosis: integrating 3D segmentation and 2.5D classification on CT images.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francesco AlessandrinoDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. falessandrino@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1681-1284
Christopher M BonoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Christopher A PotterDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Mitchel B HarrisDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Aaron D SodicksonDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Bharti KhuranaDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo describe and categorize diagnostic errors in cervical spine CT (CsCT) interpretation performed for trauma and to assess their clinical significance.

methodsAll CsCTs performed for trauma with diagnostic errors that came to our attention based on clinical or imaging follow-up or quality assurance peer review from 2004 to 2017 were included. The number of CsCTs performed at our institution during the same time interval was calculated. Errors were categorized as spinal/extraspinal, involving osseous/soft tissue structures, by anatomical site and level. Images were reviewed by a radiologist and two spine surgeons. For each error, the need for surgery, immobilization, CT angiogram of the neck, and MRI was assessed; if any of these were needed, the error was considered clinically significant.

resultsOf an approximate total 59,000 CsCTs, 56 reports containing diagnostic errors were included. Twelve were extraspinal, and 44 were spinal (26 fractures, 15 intervertebral disc protrusions, two subluxations, one lytic bone lesion). The most common sites of spinal fractures were vertebral body (n = 10) and transverse process (n = 8); the most common levels were C5 (n = 8) and C7 (n = 6). All (n = 26) fractures and two atlantooccipital subluxations were considered clinically significant, including three patients who would have required urgent surgical stabilization (two subluxations and one facet fracture). Two transverse processes fractures did not alter the need for surgical intervention/surgical approach, immobilization, or MRI.

conclusionsIn our study, 66% of spinal diagnostic errors on CsCT were considered clinically significant, potentially altering clinical management. Transverse process and vertebral body fractures were commonly missed.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedCervical VertebraeClinical CompetenceDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleRetrospective StudiesSpinal InjuriesCervical vertebraeComputed tomographyDiagnostic errorsSpinal fracturesSpinal injuries

Identifiers

PMID30929146
OpenAlexW2928516558

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.