ArticleHeliyon2023
Discrepancy rate and clinical impact of preliminary reports from radiology residents.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of teleradiology: balancing clinical benefits and operational limitations.Neuroradiology · 2026Review
- How do non-radiologist physicians read and use the radiology report? A French national survey.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of radiology residents versus attending radiologists in detecting retained surgical items: a pilot study.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Residents usually cover night and weekend shifts issuing the preliminary reading of radiological studies in university hospitals. This is essential to strengthening decision-making skills when facing complex cases independently. However, there should be a balance between patient safety and academic experience since some concern has been expressed about the accuracy of the interpretations generated by trainees. This work aims to evaluate and characterize the discrepancies in preliminary reports issued by radiology residents. Material and methods: Radiologists filled out a questionnaire to evaluate preliminary reports of trainees considering diagnosis, findings description, clinical approach changes, and critical findings. Analysis was performed considering modality, imaging type, body part, and resident academic year. A Chi-square test with a significance level α of 0.05 was used to make group comparisons. Results: A total of 9072 studies were reviewed. Major and minor overall discrepancy rates were 1.7% and 8.3%, respectively. Minor discrepancy rate, findings description, and critical findings identification improved with increasing academic year, both overall and by modality. Discrepancy rates were lower for CT than MR and neuroimaging than for body-imaging studies. The highest major and minor discrepancy rates as abdomen/pelvis CT and lumbar-spine MR, respectively. Two percent of reports presented discrepancies that could generate a medical approach change. Conclusion: Discrepancy rates are low and comparable with those reported in the literature. These rates tend to improve as the resident's academic year increases. Our results suggest that radiology residents' coverage of night shifts and weekends is a practice that benefits the educational process without negatively impacting patient safety.
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.