Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39429472›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024

The ins and outs of errors in oncology imaging: the DAC framework for radiologists.

Antoine Iannessi, Hubert Beaumont, Carlos Aguillera, Francois Nicol, Anne-Sophie Bertrand

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Antoine IannessiDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology Department, Cancer Center Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France.
Hubert BeaumontMedian Technologies, Imaging Lab Research Unit, Valbonne, France.
Carlos AguilleraClinical Research Department, Therapixel Research Unit, Nice, France.
Francois NicolNeuromod Institute , Centre Mémoire, Institut Claude Pompidou, Nice, France.
Anne-Sophie BertrandImaging Department, Imaging Center, Beaulieu-sur-mer, Beaulieu-sur-Mer, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the increasingly central role of imaging in medical diagnosis, understanding and monitoring radiological errors has become essential. In the field of oncology, the severity of the disease makes radiological error more visible, with both individual consequences and public health issues. The quantitative trend radiology allows to consider the diagnostic task as a problem of classification supported by the latest neurocognitive theories in explaining decision making errors, this purposeful model provides an actionable framework to support root cause analysis of diagnostic errors in radiology and envision corresponding risk-management strategies. The D for Data, A for Analysis and C for Communication are the three drivers of errors and we propose a practical toolbox for our colleagues to prevent individual and systemic sources of error.

Indexed as

cognitiondiagnostic errors/statistics and numerical dataoncologyquality improvementradiologistsrisk factorsscientific mistaketomography mammography

Identifiers

PMID39429472
PMCPMC11486622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.