Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32997178›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Revealing the most common reporting errors through data mining of the report proofreading process.

Jan Vosshenrich, Ivan Nesic, Joshy Cyriac, Daniel T Boll, Elmar M Merkle, Tobias Heye

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jan VosshenrichDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. jan.vosshenrich@usb.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3323-8472
Ivan NesicDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Joshy CyriacDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Daniel T BollDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Elmar M MerkleDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Tobias HeyeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the most common errors in residents' preliminary reports, if structured reporting impacts error types and frequencies, and to identify possible implications for resident education and patient safety. MATERIAL AND

methodsChanges in report content were tracked by a report comparison tool on a word level and extracted for 78,625 radiology reports dictated from September 2017 to December 2018 in our department. Following data aggregation according to word stems and stratification by subspecialty (e.g., neuroradiology) and imaging modality, frequencies of additions/deletions were analyzed for findings and impression report section separately and compared between subgroups.

resultsOverall modifications per report averaged 4.1 words, with demonstrably higher amounts of changes for cross-sectional imaging (CT: 6.4; MRI: 6.7) than non-cross-sectional imaging (radiographs: 0.2; ultrasound: 2.8). The four most frequently changed words (right, left, one, and none) remained almost similar among all subgroups (range: 0.072-0.117 per report; once every 9-14 reports). Albeit representing only 0.02% of analyzed words, they accounted for up to 9.7% of all observed changes. Subspecialties solely using structured reporting had substantially lower change ratios in the findings report section (mean: 0.2 per report) compared with prose-style reporting subspecialties (mean: 2.0). Relative frequencies of the most changed words remained unchanged.

conclusionResidents' most common reporting errors in all subspecialties and modalities are laterality discriminator confusions (left/right) and unnoticed descriptor misregistration by speech recognition (one/none). Structured reporting reduces overall error rates, but does not affect occurrence of the most common errors. Increased error awareness and measures improving report correctness and ensuring patient safety are required. KEY POINTS: • The two most common reporting errors in residents' preliminary reports are laterality discriminator confusions (left/right) and unnoticed descriptor misregistration by speech recognition (one/none). • Structured reporting reduces the overall the error frequency in the findings report section by a factor of 10 (structured reporting: mean 0.2 per report; prose-style reporting: 2.0) but does not affect the occurrence of the two major errors. • Staff radiologist review behavior noticeably differs between radiology subspecialties.

Indexed as

RadiologyRadiology Information SystemsData MiningHumansRadiographyResearch ReportEducationMedical errorsPatient safetyReportResidency

Identifiers

PMID32997178
PMCPMC7979672
OpenAlexW3089996394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.