Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Causes of error in gastrointestinal radiology

I. Upper gastrointestinal examination

  • Published:
Gastrointestinal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the causes of errors on upper gastrointestinal studies. Of 129 ulcers and neoplasms seen endoscopically, 14 were unreported radiologically, representing false negative errors. The most common type of error was failure to note a lesion rendered poorly visible by an inadequate examination. Contributing technical failures included insufficient films, poor coating, poor compression films, retained food and secretions, and badly exposed films. Perceptive failures included both misinterpretation and failure to note a lesion. Among 10 false positive errors, barium between distorted folds simulating an ulcer occurred most commonly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lavelle MI, Venables CW, Douglas AP, Thompson MH, Owen JP, Hacking PM: A comparative study of double-contrast and single-contrast barium meals with endoscopic arbitration in the diagnosis of peptic ulcer.Clin Radiol 28:625–627, 1977

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Montagne JP, Moss AA, Margulis AR: Double-blind study of single and double contrast upper gastrointestinal examination using endoscopy as a control.Am J Roentgenol 130:1041–1045, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hedemand N, Kruse A, Madsen EH, Mathiasen MS: X-ray examination or endoscopy? A blind prospective study including barium meal, double contrast examination, and endoscopy of esophagus, stomach, and duodenum.Gastrointest Radiol 1:331–334, 1977

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Laufer I, Mullens JE, Hamilton J: The diagnostic accuracy of barium studies of the stomach and duodenum — correlation with endoscopy.Radiology 115:569–573, 1975

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rogers IM, Sokhi GS, Moule B, Joffe SN, Blumgart LH: Endoscopy and routine and double contrast barium meal in diagnosis of gastric and duodenal disorders.Lancet 1:901–902, 1976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Morrissey JF, Honda T, Hara Y, Juhl JH, Perna G: The use of the gastrocamera for the diagnosis of gastric ulcer.Gastroenterology 48:711–717, 1965

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Umezaki Y, Rider JA, Puletti EJ: Experience with 500 fiberendoscopic examinations of the upper gastrointestinal tract.Endoscopy 5: 130–135, 1973

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen NN, Hughes RW, Manfredo HE: Experience with 1000 fibergastroscopic examinations of the stomach.Am J Dig Dis 11:943–950, 1966

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayakawa H: A study of x-ray and endoscopic diagnosis of linear ulcer of the stomach.Nippon Acta Radiol 28:24–60, 1968

    Google Scholar 

  10. McColl I: The value of upper gastrointestinal fibrescopy.Br J Surg 59:793–794, 1972

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Keller RT, Logan GM: Comparison of emergent endoscopy and upper gastrointestinal series radiography in acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.Gut 17:180–184, 1976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kasugai T, Kuno N, Aoki I, Kizu M, Kobayashi S: Fiberduodenoscopy: Analysis of 353 examinations.Gastrointest Endosc 18:9–16, 1971

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kawai K, Ida K, Misaki F, Akasaka Y, Kohli Y: Comparative study for duodenal ulcer by radiology and endoscopy.Endoscopy 5:7–13, 1973

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ratnaike RN, Kirkland JA, Holford M, Grant AK: Comparative accuracy of methods used in the diagnosis of gastric cancer.Med J Aust 2:30–32, 1972

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nelson RS, Urrea LH, Lanza FL: Evaluation of gastric ulcerations.Am J Dig Dis 21:384–392, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  16. Herlenger H, Glanville JL, Kreel L: An evaluation of the double-contrast barium meal (DCBM) against endoscopy.Clin Radiol 28:307–314, 1977

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Knutson CO, Max MH, Ahmad W, Polk HC: Should flexible fiberoptic endoscopy replace barium contrast study of the upper gastrointestinal tract?Surgery 84:609–615, 1978

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. St. Stender H, Seifert E, Luska G, Otto P: Vergleichende röntgenologische und endoscopische Diagnostik des Ulcers ventriculi und duodeni.Fortschr Roentgenstr 122:381–385, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  19. St. Stender H, Seifert E, Luska G, Wagner HH: Aussagewert röntgenologischer und endoskopischer Untersuchungen beim Magenkarzinom.Fortschr Roentgenstr 124:330–335, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cumberland DC: Fibre-optic endoscopy and radiology in the investigation of the upper gastrointestinal tract.Clin Radiol 26:223–236, 1975

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Monges H, Jouve P, Hancy A, Cougard A, Castro R: La radiologie gastrique confrontée avec la fibroendoscopie.J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl 56:657–662, 1975

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Belber JP: Endoscopic examination of the duodenal bulb: a comparison with x-ray.Gastroenterology 61:55–61, 1971

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cotton PB: Fibreoptic endoscopy and the barium meal — results and implications.Br Med J 2:161–165, 1973

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McGinn FP, Guyer PB, Wilken BJ, Steer HW: A prospective comparative trial between early endoscopy and radiology in acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.Gut 16:707–713, 1975

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shirakabe H, Ichikawa H, Kamakura K, Nishizawa M, Higurashi K, Hayakawa H, Murakami T:Atlas of X-Ray Diagnosis of Early Gastric Cancer pp.1–21. JB Lippincott Co, Philadelphia, 1966

    Google Scholar 

  26. Horikoshi H: Characteristics of x-ray examination of the stomach. Early gastric cancer,Gann 11:93–103, 1971

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kiyonari H: Study on capability of diagnosis in mass survey of the stomach.Nippon Acta Radiol 25:1–22, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stein GN, Martin RD, Roy RH, Finkelstein AK: Evaluation of conventional roentgenographic techniques for demonstration of duodenal ulcer craters.Am J Roentgenol 91:801–807, 1964

    Google Scholar 

  29. Garland LH: Studies on the accuracy of diagnostic procedures.Am J Roentgenol 82:25–38, 1959

    Google Scholar 

  30. Morgan RH, Donner MW, Gayler BW, Margulis SI, Rao PS, Wheeler PS: Decision process and observer error in the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis by chest roentgenography.Am J Roentgenol 117:757–764, 1973

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kundel HL, Revesz G: Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error.Am J Roentgenol 126:1233–1238, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lehr JL, Lodwick GS, Farrell C, Braaten MO, Virtama P, Kolvisto EL: Direct measurement of the effect of film miniaturization on diagnostic accuracy.Radiology 118:257–263, 1976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kundel HL, Reverz G, Toto L: Contrast gradient and the detection of lung nodules.Invest Radiol 14:18–22, 1979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, 27103, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    David W. Gelfand M.D., David J. Ott & Rocco Tritico

Authors
  1. David W. Gelfand M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David J. Ott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rocco Tritico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gelfand, D.W., Ott, D.J. & Tritico, R. Causes of error in gastrointestinal radiology. Gastrointest Radiol 5, 91–97 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01888610

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01888610

Key words

Search

Navigation