Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34058137›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2021

Oncologic Errors in Diagnostic Radiology: A 10-Year Analysis Based on Medical Malpractice Claims.

Andrew B Rosenkrantz, Dana Siegal, Jillian A Skillings, Ada Muellner, Sharyl J Nass, Hedvig Hricak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Andrew B RosenkrantzSection Chief of Abdominal Imaging, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York.
Dana SiegalCRICO Strategies; part of the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts.
Jillian A SkillingsCRICO Strategies; part of the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts.
Ada MuellnerDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Sharyl J NassNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC.
Hedvig HricakChair of the Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo retrospectively analyze the nature and extent of oncology-related errors accounting for malpractice allegations in diagnostic radiology.

methodsThe Comparative Benchmarking System of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company, a database containing roughly 30% of medical malpractice claims in the United States, was searched retrospectively for the period 2008 to 2017. Claims naming radiology as a primary service were identified and were stratified and compared by oncologic versus nononcologic status, allegation type (diagnostic versus nondiagnostic), and imaging modality.

resultsOver the 10-year period, radiology was the primary responsible service for 3.9% of all malpractice claims (2,582 of 66,061) and 12.8% of claims with diagnostic allegations (1,756 of 13,695). Oncology (neoplasms) accounted for 44.0% of radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, a larger share than any other category of medical condition. Among radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, high-severity harm occurred in 79% of oncologic but just 42% of nononcologic cases. Of all oncologic radiology cases, 97.4% had diagnostic allegations, and just 55.0% of nononcologic radiology cases had diagnostic allegations. Imaging misinterpretation was a contributing factor for a large majority (80.7% [623 of 772]) of oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations. The modalities most commonly used in oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations involving misinterpretation were mammography and CT.

conclusionOncology represents the largest source of radiology malpractice cases with diagnostic allegations. Oncologic radiology malpractice cases are more likely than nononcologic radiology cases to be due to diagnostic errors. Furthermore, compared with those that are nononcologic, oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations are more likely to be associated with high-severity harm. Efforts are warranted to reduce misinterpretations of oncologic imaging.

Indexed as

MalpracticeRadiologyDiagnostic ErrorsHumansMedical ErrorsRadiographyRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesDiagnostic errorsdiagnostic radiologymalpractice claimsneoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34058137
PMCPMC11175171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.