ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Pre-procedural disclosure of potential diagnostic errors in radiology: public perspectives in the Netherlands.
Article in European 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess public attitudes toward prospective disclosure of diagnostic error risk in radiologic imaging (i.e., informing patients in advance about the possibility a radiologic examination may yield an incorrect finding, rather than disclosure of an error after it has occurred) and to identify factors influencing these preferences. MATERIALS AND
methodsA population-based survey was conducted in the Netherlands. Participants aged ≥ 18 years (n = 1524) responded to CT-scan vignettes describing pre-procedural potential diagnostic errors, varying by patient age (9, 26, 46, or 71 years) and probability of incorrect findings (< 0.1%, < 1%, < 5%, or unspecified). For case vignettes involving 9-year-old patients, participants responded as parents/guardians. Agreement with "I would want to be informed" was measured using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree).
resultsOverall, 88.4% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that patients should be informed about the risk of diagnostic errors. Patient age and diagnostic error risk significantly influenced agreement. Compared with vignettes describing a 71-year-old patient, younger patient ages were associated with higher odds of agreement (9-year-old OR 4.023, p = 0.010; 26-year-old OR 3.222, p = 0.019; 46-year-old OR 2.659, p = 0.022). Compared with vignettes in which diagnostic error risk was unspecified, specifying risks of < 0.1% or < 1% was associated with lower odds of agreement (< 0.1% risk: OR 0.476, p < 0.001; < 1% risk: OR 0.635, p = 0.002), whereas a < 5% risk was not (OR 0.876, p = 0.360).
conclusionPublic support for prospective disclosure of diagnostic error risk in radiologic imaging is high in the Dutch population, particularly for younger patients and higher-risk scenarios. KEY POINTS: Question Most adults in the Netherlands support disclosure of diagnostic error risk in radiologic imaging, particularly for younger patients and higher-risk scenarios. Findings Public preferences for disclosure are driven by patient age and error probability, rather than participant demographics or prior radiology experience. Clinical relevance Public support for disclosure of diagnostic error risk in radiologic imaging is high in the Dutch population, especially for younger patients and higher-risk scenarios.
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.