Skip to main content
Log in

Diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation: characterization based on report addenda

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the article is to characterize the diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation through review of radiology report addenda.

Methods

We searched abdominopelvic CT reports for the word “addendum” over a nearly seven-year period. Addenda were reviewed to identify those reporting a diagnostic error. Cases were characterized by a spectrum of features.

Results

709 addenda describing 785 diagnostic errors were identified, representing approximately 0.5% of searched reports. 84.1% were a new finding, 5.1% an upgrade in severity of an originally reported finding, 3.9% a downgrade in severity, and 6.9% other modification. The most common anatomic sites, as well as the most common missed abnormality per site, were vasculature (9.8%, atherosclerosis/thrombus), abdominal wall (8.3%, ventral hernia), bone [7.4%, osseous lesion (not clearly benign)], kidney [6.9%, renal lesion (not clearly benign)], liver (6.1%, steatosis), and ureter (5.1%, calculus). Of 209 addenda providing a reason for the change, 30.6% related to comparison with prior imaging, 22.5% additional surgical history, 13.4% referrer request for re-review, 8.6% additional signs, symptoms, or lab abnormality, 8.6% additional known diagnosis, 5.7% attention to patient gender, 5.3% multi-planar reconstructions, and 5.3% consultation with other radiologist.

Conclusion

Missed findings rather than misinterpretations of detected abnormalities were the most common reason for abdominopelvic CT report addenda. Awareness of the most common misses by anatomic location may help guide quality assurance initiatives. A wide variety of contributing factors were identified. Informatics and workflow optimization may be warranted to facilitate radiologists’ access to all available patient-related data, as well as communication with other physicians, and thereby help reduce diagnostic errors.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH (2015) Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics 35(6):1668–1676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brigham LR, Mansouri M, Abujudeh HH (2015) JOURNAL CLUB: Radiology Report Addenda: a self-report approach to error identification, quantification, and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(6):1230–1239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Garland LH (1949) On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology 52(3):309–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashman CJ, Yu JS, Wolfman D (2000) Satisfaction of search in osteoradiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(2):541–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Donald JJ, Barnard SA (2012) Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 56(2):173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Siegle RL, Baram EM, Reuter SR, et al. (1998) Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Acad Radiol 5(3):148–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, et al. (2010) Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol 20(8):1952–1957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2004) RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 1(1):59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M (2004) Disagreement in interpretation: a method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 1(3):212–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Quekel LG, Kessels AG, Goei R, van Engelshoven JM (1999) Miss rate of lung cancer on the chest radiograph in clinical practice. Chest 115(3):720–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kundel HL (1989) Perception errors in chest radiography. Semin Respir Med 10(3):203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berlin L (2014) Radiologic errors, past, present and future. Diagnosis 1(1):79–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study did not receive funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew B. Rosenkrantz.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Disclosures

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The requirement for written informed consent was waived by the IRB.

Additional information

The NYU School of Medicine Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosenkrantz, A.B., Bansal, N.K. Diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic CT interpretation: characterization based on report addenda. Abdom Radiol 41, 1793–1799 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0741-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0741-8

Keywords

Navigation