Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31754742›Full record

ArticleSkeletal radiology2020

Reporting Discrepancy Resolved by Findings and Time in 2947 Emergency Department Ankle X-rays.

Thomas James York, P J Jenkins, A J Ireland

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Skeletal radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06130397 (FRACT-AI), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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.

NCT06130397 completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

FRACT-AI: Evaluating the Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Image Analysis on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Frontline Clinicians in the Detection of Fractures on Plain X-Ray

TypeobservationalSponsorOxford University Hospitals NHS TrustRan2024 to 2025Enrolled21ConditionsFracture, Bone Fracture, Dislocation, Fracture MultipleArmsCases reading, Ground truthing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas James YorkSt Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK. thomas.york@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3946-561X
P J JenkinsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF, UK.
A J IrelandDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF, UK.
Glasgow Royal Infirmary · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo identify common errors in ankle X-ray reporting between initial interpretation and final assessment at the virtual fracture clinic. Also, to assess time of initial reporting as a causative factor for discrepancy.

methodsTwo thousand nine hundred forty-seven final reports were reviewed by standard of agreement to the initial interpretation. Where discrepancy was found, it was classified and collated by specific finding. Comparison was made between reports with discrepancy and the complete dataset, allowing rates of error by finding to be established. The reports containing discrepancy were further classified by time period, this was compared against an expected value to establish if initial reporting outside of routine working hours was as accurate as that conducted within routine working hours.

results94.4% of reports were in agreement with the initial interpretation, 2.9% contained minor discrepancy, and 2.7% major discrepancy. In 45.6% of reports there was no radiologically observable injury. 16.4% of reports contained a lateral malleolar fracture, most commonly Weber type B. 40.0% of all navicular fractures, and 33.3% of all cuboidal fractures were not commented upon in the initial reporting. Lower rates of more frequently observed findings were missed with 2.5% of Weber type B fractures not commented upon. An increased proportion of major discrepancy reports were generated from 00:00 to 07:59 (expected = 15.0%, observed = 22.2%; p = 0.07908). Similarly, a greater than expected number of minor discrepancy reports were found between 20:00 and 23:59 (expected = 18.0%, observed = 34.1%, p = 0.00025).

conclusionsThe initial reporting of ankle X-rays in the emergency department is performed to a high standard, however serious missed findings emphasise the need for timely senior review. Reporters should increase their awareness of navicular, cuboid, talar, and Weber A fractures which were missed at disproportionate rates. This study also finds evidence to support increased rates of error in initial reporting of ankle X-rays outside of normal working hours (17:00-07:59), particularly with a significantly increased rate of minor discrepancy seen from 20:00 to 23:59.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAnkleAnkle FracturesDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansMaleRadiographyRetrospective StudiesTimeAnkle fracturesReporting discrepancyReporting errorsTime resolved discrepancyX-ray reporting

Identifiers

PMID31754742
PMCPMC7021739
OpenAlexW2991087622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.