Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37518838›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2023

Daytime, evening, and overnight: the 24-h radiology cycle and impact on interpretative accuracy.

Shannon Zhou, Tarek Hanna, Tianwen Ma, Timothy D Johnson, Christine Lamoureux, Scott Weber, Jamlik-Omari Johnson, Scott D Steenburg, Jeffrey W Dunkle, Suzanne T Chong

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2023. 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. Review
  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

10 authors.

Shannon ZhouDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Tarek HannaEmergency and Trauma Imaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tianwen MaDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Timothy D JohnsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Christine LamoureuxVirtual Radiologic, Eden Prairie, MN, USA.
Scott WeberVirtual Radiologic, Eden Prairie, MN, USA.
Jamlik-Omari JohnsonKeck School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Scott D SteenburgDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Jeffrey W DunkleDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Suzanne T ChongDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. suzchong@iu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4394-475X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the influence of time of day when a study is interpreted on discrepancy rates for common and advanced studies performed in the acute community setting.

methodsThis retrospective study used the databank of a U.S. teleradiology company to retrieve studies between 2012 and 2016 with a preliminary report followed by a final report by the on-site client hospital. Neuroradiology, abdominal radiology, and musculoskeletal radiology studies were included. Teleradiologists were fellowship trained in one of these subspecialty areas. Daytime, evening, and overnight times were defined. Associations between major and minor discrepancies, time of day, and whether the study was common or advanced were tested with significance set at p = .05.

resultsA total of 5,883,980 studies were analyzed. There were 8444 major discrepancies (0.14%) and 17,208 minor discrepancies (0.29%). For common studies, daytime (0.13%) and evening (0.13%) had lower major discrepancy rates compared to overnight (0.14%) (daytime to overnight, RR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.45, 0.72, p < 0.01 and evening to overnight, RR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.49,0.67, p < 0.01). Minor discrepancy rates for common studies were decreased for evening (0.29%) compared to overnight (0.30%) (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.80,0.99, p = 0.029). For advanced studies, daytime (.15%) had lower major discrepancy rates compared to evening (0.20%) and overnight (.23%) (daytime to evening, RR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.61, 0.97, p = 0.028 and daytime to overnight, RR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.50, 0.87, p ≤ 0.01).

conclusionSignificantly higher major discrepancy rates for studies interpreted overnight suggest the need for radiologists to exercise greater caution when interpreting studies overnight and may require practice management strategies to help optimize overnight work conditions. The lower major discrepancy rates on advanced studies interpreted during the daytime suggest the need for reserving advanced studies for interpretation during the day when possible.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyRadiologyHumansRadiologistsRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedEmergencyFellowshipMedical errorShiftworkTeleradiology

Identifiers

PMID37518838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.