ArticleEmergency radiology2026
After-hours CT report discrepancies: evaluating radiology resident performance.
Article in Emergency 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeveral prior international studies have examined radiology resident reporting discrepancy rates, with a range of 1-10% quoted. Limited data exists specifically for the after-hours setting, where residents are often staffed at training institutions and report most, or all, studies. Our aims are to determine after-hours resident CT report discrepancy rates at our institution, determine the clinical significance of discrepancies, and assess factors affecting resident performance.
methodsA retrospective review of 2000 after-hours resident CT reports (April through July 2022) was conducted. Preliminary resident reports were compared to attending radiologist finalised reports, with discrepancies categorized into 15 sub-categories; including those that were minor, major and clinically significant. Patient electronic medical records (EMR) were reviewed to assess clinical significance. Statistical analyses were performed using XLStat.
resultsThe overall resident CT report discrepancy rate was 44.3% (885/2000), with most discrepancies considered minor changes (67.8%). The rate of major discrepancies was 19.9% (398/2000), while the rate of clinically significant discrepancies was 2.45% (49/2000). The most common major discrepancies included diagnostic misses (16.9%) and overcalls (5.7%). Discrepancies were highest among 2nd-year residents. Significant differences were observed when comparing 2nd- vs. 3rd-year residents (48.1% vs. 39.3%, p < 0.001), early evening vs. overnight shifts (49.5% vs. 38.5%, p < 0.001), and weekdays vs. weekends (49% vs. 38.2%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between major or clinically significant discrepancies.
conclusionsMost resident after-hours CT discrepancies are minor. Our institution demonstrates a low rate of clinically significant discrepancies, which is at the lower end of rates quoted in prior studies. Our findings support high resident performance and reinforce the effectiveness of our current after-hours model in reducing the clinical impact of resident reporting errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41361131What 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.