ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Incidence and predictors of discrepancies in radiology resident interpretations of coronary CT in the emergency department.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Breaking the bottleneck: a quality improvement initiative to reduce overnight CT turnaround times in the emergency department.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscrepancies between preliminary reports by on-call radiology residents and final reports of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in the emergency department (ED) have not been thoroughly investigated.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective quality assurance analysis of CCTA examinations performed during off-hours in a level-1 ED at a tertiary teaching hospital between March 2020 and April 2022. Discrepancies in identifying significant coronary artery disease (≥ 50% stenosis) between preliminary reports by on-call residents and final reports by board-certified cardiac radiologists were evaluated.
resultsAmong the 766 patient visits (median age, 59 years [interquartile range, 47-70]; 415 men), 82 cases (10.7%) showed discrepancies. Univariable logistic regression analyses identified HEART score, day of ED visit, ED crowding index, and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score as significant factors associated with discrepancies. Multivariable analysis revealed that an ED crowding index < 40 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.06; P = 0.005), and positive CAC scores were independently associated with increased discrepancies (adjusted odds ratio = 4.56 for scores > 0 and ≤ 100, P < 0.001; 4.79 for scores > 100 and ≤ 400, P < 0.001; 3.69 for scores > 400, P = 0.002). The rate of unnecessary invasive coronary angiography was significantly higher in the discrepancy group (80.0%, 12 of 15) compared to the agreement group (14.4%, 16 of 111) (P < 0.05).
conclusionsA substantial discrepancy rate was observed between preliminary and final CCTA interpretations in the ED. A lower ED crowding index and positive CAC scores were independently associated with an increased risk of discrepancies.
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.