Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2008
Postprocedural interpretation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography by radiology.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khanna Nitin, May Gary, Bass Sydney, Cole Marty, Romagnuolo Joseph
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: With the increase in the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (necessitating real-time interpretation), it is unknown whether post-ERCP radiologist reporting is still necessary or helpful.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of discrepancy of results, and the rate of clinically relevant misses and additions, by the radiology report in a blinded setting.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the procedure and blinded postprocedure radiology reports of 100 consecutive ERCP cases was performed. A list of clinically relevant pathology and subgroups was made a priori. Discrepancies are described as proportions, with 95% CIs. The radiology yield regarding pathology that was clearly demonstrated at ERCP (bile leaks and stones removed) was calculated. Clinical follow-up was used to clarify additional abnormalities reported by radiology.
RESULTS: Clinically relevant discrepancies in report pairs occurred in 29.0% of cases (95% CI 20% to 39%), or 40.0% if discrepancies regarding bile duct dilation are considered (95% CI 30% to 50%). In 15 of 30 cases (50.0% [95% CI 31% to 69%]) in which bile duct stones were removed, the radiologist did not report a stone. The radiologist did not report five of eight bile leaks (62.5% [95% CI 24% to 91%]). In seven cases (7.0% [95% CI 2.9% to 13.9%]), an additional abnormality was noted by radiology, including a biliary stricture, bile duct and pancreatic duct stones, as well as sclerosing cholangitis. However, during a mean follow-up period of 5.6 months, it appeared that these radiology interpretations were likely incorrect. Discrepancy rates did not vary among the ERCP attendings or by radiology volume.
CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between endoscopists' and radiologists' ERCP reports are common. Blinded radiology interpretation frequently misses important pathology, and falsely positive additional diagnoses may be made.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of discrepancy of results, and the rate of clinically relevant misses and additions, by the radiology report in a blinded setting.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the procedure and blinded postprocedure radiology reports of 100 consecutive ERCP cases was performed. A list of clinically relevant pathology and subgroups was made a priori. Discrepancies are described as proportions, with 95% CIs. The radiology yield regarding pathology that was clearly demonstrated at ERCP (bile leaks and stones removed) was calculated. Clinical follow-up was used to clarify additional abnormalities reported by radiology.
RESULTS: Clinically relevant discrepancies in report pairs occurred in 29.0% of cases (95% CI 20% to 39%), or 40.0% if discrepancies regarding bile duct dilation are considered (95% CI 30% to 50%). In 15 of 30 cases (50.0% [95% CI 31% to 69%]) in which bile duct stones were removed, the radiologist did not report a stone. The radiologist did not report five of eight bile leaks (62.5% [95% CI 24% to 91%]). In seven cases (7.0% [95% CI 2.9% to 13.9%]), an additional abnormality was noted by radiology, including a biliary stricture, bile duct and pancreatic duct stones, as well as sclerosing cholangitis. However, during a mean follow-up period of 5.6 months, it appeared that these radiology interpretations were likely incorrect. Discrepancy rates did not vary among the ERCP attendings or by radiology volume.
CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between endoscopists' and radiologists' ERCP reports are common. Blinded radiology interpretation frequently misses important pathology, and falsely positive additional diagnoses may be made.