ArticlePediatric radiology2026
Discrepancies between primary and secondary interpretations of pediatric nuclear medicine imaging examinations.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2026. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRequests for secondary interpretation of imaging examinations adds clinical work and generates additional charges.
objectiveTo understand the impact of secondary interpretations of pediatric nuclear medicine examinations at a quaternary academic center. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this IRB approved study, we retrospectively reviewed nuclear medicine examinations submitted for secondary interpretation by a pediatric radiologist with a nuclear medicine focus at our institution between 08/2019 and 08/2024. A single reviewer compared the primary and secondary reports to identify discrepancies that would likely impact clinical management, and discrepancies were confirmed by additional reviewers. Pediatric hematology/oncology faculty (n=29) and fellows (n=18) at our institution were surveyed to understand requests for, and the impact of, secondary interpretations. Results are summarized with descriptive statistics.
resultsThree hundred fifty-eight examinations (median patient age=8 years) were included, 237 were
conclusionSecondary interpretation of pediatric nuclear medicine examinations by pediatric radiologists with nuclear medicine focus resulted in changes that have potential impact on clinical management in 17% of cases. Secondary interpretations completely changed the impression regarding the presence or absence of malignant disease in 40% of these cases. Referring providers identified benefit in secondary interpretations even when they confirmed the primary impression.
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.