ArticleSkeletal radiology2021
Musculoskeletal Outside Interpretation (MOI-RADS): an automated quality assurance tool to prospectively track discrepancies in second-opinion interpretations in musculoskeletal imaging.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo implement an automated quality assurance tool to prospectively track discrepancies in musculoskeletal (MSK) exams submitted for second-opinion radiology interpretation at a tertiary center.
methodsFrom 2013 to 2020, a standardized template was included in re-interpretation MSK reports, and a concordance assessment compared with primary interpretation was assigned. Analysis of standardized template implementation and discordance rates was performed. Of the re-interpretations that demonstrated likely clinically relevant discordance, a sample was randomly selected and the EMR was reviewed to evaluate the impact on patient care and change in medical management.
resultsA total of 1052 re-interpretations were identified using the standardized template. Services with higher requests for second-opinion interpretation were oncology (n = 351, 33%) and orthopedic surgery (n = 255, 24%). Overall utilization rate of the template was 65% with marked decreased during the last year (22% rate). In comparison to the primary report, there was a 30% discordance rate (n = 309) with 18% (n = 184) classified as likely clinically relevant. From the subset of discrepancies that could be clinically relevant, there was a change in management in 63% of the cases (19/30) with the re-interpretation ultimately proving correct in 80% of the cases (24/30).
conclusionImplementation of a quality assurance tool embedded in the radiology workflow of second-opinion interpretations can facilitate the analysis of patient care impact; however, stricter implementation is necessary. Oncologic studies were the most common indication for re-interpretations. Although the primary and second interpretations in the majority of cases were in agreement, subspecialty MSK radiology interpretation was shown to be more accurate than primary interpretations and impacted clinical management in cases of discrepancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32968823What 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.