Abstract
Background
Missing a fracture in a child on skeletal surveys for suspected non-accidental trauma can have devastating results. Double-read has the potential to improve fracture detection. However the yield of double-read is unknown.
Objective
To determine the advantage of double-read versus single-read of radiographic skeletal surveys for suspected non-accidental trauma.
Materials and methods
The study was performed in two phases. In the first phase (April 2013 to September 2013), double-read was performed for all skeletal surveys obtained during weekday working hours. Because we had no new double-read findings in studies initially read as negative, we conducted a second phase (January 2014 to March 2014). In the second phase we limited double-reads to skeletal surveys found positive on the first read. At the end of this period, we retrospectively performed double-read for all initially negative skeletal surveys. We excluded follow-up skeletal surveys. The difference in discrepancy (new fracture or false diagnosis of a fracture) ratio between negative and positive skeletal surveys was evaluated using the Fisher exact test, and change in discrepancy ratio between the first and second study phases was evaluated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.
Results
Overall in the two phases, 178 skeletal surveys were performed in 178 children (67 girls) with mean age of 9 months (range 3 days to 3.7 years). Double-read found 16 discrepancies in 8/178 (4.5%) skeletal surveys. Seven of these studies showed additional fractures (n=15). In one study, an initial read of a skull fracture was read as a variant on the second read. There was a significant (P=0.01) difference between rate of disagreement in negative skeletal surveys (1/104, 1.0%) and positive skeletal surveys (7/74, 9.5%). No significant change in disagreement rate was demonstrated between the two phases of the study (P=0.59).
Conclusion
Double-read of skeletal survey for suspected non-accidental trauma found false-negative fractures in a few cases and rarely found false-positive diagnosis of a fracture. Double-read uncommonly found discrepancies in an initially normal skeletal survey. Limiting double-read to initially positive studies improves the yield of the double-read.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Children's Bureau (2014) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Child maltreatment report for 2014. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment. Accessed 9 October 2016
Offiah AC, Hall CM (2003) Observational study of skeletal surveys in suspected non-accidental injury. Clin Radiol 58:702–705
Offiah A, van Rijn RR, Perex-Rossello JM et al (2009) Skeletal imaging of child abuse (non-accidental injury). Pediatr Radiol 39:461–470
Carty H, Pierce A (2002) Non-accidental injury: a retrospective analysis of a large cohort. Eur Radiol 12:2919–2925
Liston JC, Dall BJG (2003) Can the NHS Breast Screening Programme afford not to double read screening mammograms? Clin Radiol 58:474–477
Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM (1998) A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen 5:195–201
Hymel KP, Rumack CM, Hay TC et al (1997) Comparison of intracranial computed tomographic (CT) findings in pediatric abusive and accidental head trauma. Pediatr Radiol 27:743–747
Leslie A, Virjee JP (2002) Detection of colorectal carcinoma on double contrast barium enema when double reporting is routinely performed: an audit of current practice. Clin Radiol 57:184–187
Markus JB, Somers S, O'Malley BP et al (1990) Double-contrast barium enema studies: effect of multiple reading on perception error. Radiology 175:155–156
Murphy R, Slater A, Uberoi R et al (2010) Reduction of perception error by double reporting of minimal preparation CT colon. Br J Radiol 83:331–335
Briggs GM, Flynn PA, Worthington M et al (2008) The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value? Clin Radiol 63:791–795
Deans KJ, Thackaray J, Askegard-Giesmann JR et al (2013) Mortality increases with recurrent episodes of nonaccidental trauma in children. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 75:161–165
Hulson OS, van Rijn RR, Offiah AC (2014) European survey of imaging in non-accidental injury demonstrates a need for a consensus protocol. Pediatr Radiol 44:1557–1563
Posso MC, Puig T, Quintana MJ et al (2016) Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis. Eur Radiol 26:3262–3267
James SL, Halliday K, Somers J et al (2003) A survey of non-accidental injury imaging in England, Scotland and Wales. Clin Radiol 58:696–701
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Karmazyn, B., Miller, E.M., Lay, S.E. et al. Double-read of skeletal surveys in suspected non-accidental trauma: what we learned. Pediatr Radiol 47, 584–589 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3783-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3783-3