ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Second-opinion interpretation of outside facility general ultrasound studies: rate of discrepancies and management change.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecond-opinion reads on imaging studies are common for CT and MRI, but many institutions are hesitant to implement a workflow for second read of ultrasound studies performed at other facilities due to quality considerations.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess discrepancy rates between initial and second-opinion general ultrasound reports
methodsWe reviewed all requests of second-opinion US studies referred to our tertiary care center between 02/01/2020 and 06/23/2022. We evaluated percentage of exams that were interpreted versus archived. Whenever the original report was available (n = 196 studies), we evaluated any discrepancy in findings, interpretation, and potential management change based on second report compared to the initial report as evaluated by consensus agreement of 3 subspecialized radiologists.
resultsA total of 586 ultrasound studies for 533 patients were nominated for consult. After excluding 58 studies for technical reasons (e.g., duplicate nomination, images for procedure guidance, modality is not ultrasound) and 282 studies that were archived by the reading radiologist due to various objective (e.g., studies such as echocardiography not interpreted by the abdominal imagers or more recent study available obviating need for consultation) and subjective (e.g., suboptimal image quality, lack of cine clips) reasons, a total of 246 studies were reinterpreted and were further analyzed. Only 21/246 patients (8.5%) got repeat ultrasound of the same body part within 3 months of original study date. The original (first-read) report was available for 196/246 studies, with discrepancy present between the first and second reads in 74/196 (37.8%) studies, with potential management change in 51/196 (26.0%) studies.
conclusionSecond-opinion interpretation of outside ultrasound examinations by subspecialized radiologists can result in recommended management change in 26% of studies indicating potential for added value to reinterpreting ultrasound studies despite the concerns for quality control.
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.