ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2023
Analysis of "visible in retrospect" to monitor false-negative findings in radiological reports.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generative AI and large language models in nuclear medicine: current status and future prospects.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Review
- Hidden blood loss and its risk factors in percutaneous vertebroplasty surgery for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFalse-negative findings in radiological reports can lead to serious adverse patient outcomes. We determined the frequency and tendency of false-negative findings in radiological reports by searching for words related to "visible in retrospect".
methodsIn the period of 34 months, we extracted radiological reports containing words related to "visible in retrospect". Of these reports, we extracted false-negative findings that were not described in past reports and were first detected retrospectively. Misinterpretations were excluded. The occurrences of the terms that we identified were analyzed by all examinations, modality, month, and anatomical and lesion classifications were analyzed.
resultsOf the 135,251 examinations, 941 reports (0.71%) with 962 findings were detected, with an average of 1.4 findings per business day. By modality, 713 of 81,899 (0.87%) CT examinations, 208 of 36,174 (0.57%) MR, 34 of 9,585 (0.35%) FDG-PET-CT, 2 of 2,258 (0.09%) digital radiography, and 5 of 5,335 (0.09%) other nuclear medicine examinations were found. By anatomical classification, there were 383 (40%) in chest, 353 (37%) in abdomen, 162 (17%) in head, 42 (4.4%) in face and neck, 9 (0.93%) in extremity, and 13 (1.4%) in others. By lesion classification, we identified 665 (69%) for localized lesion, 170 (18%) for vascular lesion, 83 (8.6%) for inflammatory lesion, 14 (1.5%) for traumatic lesion, 12 (1.2%) for organ dysfunction, 11 (1.1%) for degenerative lesion, and 7 (0.7%) for the others. Notable high-frequency specific site diseases by modality were 210 (22%) of localized lesions in lung on CT.
conclusionOur results demonstrated that missed lung localized lesions on CT, which account for about a fifth of false-negative findings, were the most common false-negative finding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.