Breast cancer screening in 21 countries

Ballard-Barbash, R.; Klabunde, Carrie N.; Paci, Euǵenio; Broeders, M.; Coleman, Elizabeth Ann; Fracheboud, Jacques; Bouchard, Françoise; Rennert, Gad; Shapiro, Stephen J.

doi:10.1097/00008469-199910000-00007

Cited by 62 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17 In a quality assurance perspective there might be mutual benefits from bringing clinicians into the feedback loop. It may increase awareness among clinicians of the limitations of (1) 1 Ischaemia of small or large intestine (4) 4 Aneurysms (abdominal aorta, iliac and cystic artery) (3) 2 1 Pancreaticobiliary system ‡, † † (12) Biliary obstruction (4) 3 1 Pancreatic duct obstruction/dilatation (2) 2 Contrast accumulation in gall bladder (1) 1 Pancreatitis and sequela (5) 5 Leak/perforation (11) Anastomotic leakage (5) 3 1 1 Perforated diverticulitis (4) 4 Perforation, cause unknown (1) 1 Perforated duodenal ulcer (1) 1 Intestinal ‡ ‡ obstruction* (9) Small intestinal obstruction (6) 5 1 Large intestinal obstruction (2) 2 Subileus (1) 1 Hernia § § (9) Hernia without obstruction/incarceration (9) 9 Intestinal ‡ ‡ inflammation (5) Colitis ( (1) 1 Accessory spleen (1) 1 Gynaecology , §,**-Endometrioma (1) 1 Total 118 17 11 *Large intestinal obstruction due to colon cancer (1) classified as obstruction, not cancer. †Possible premalignancy: defined as lesions requiring further investigations or controls in order to evaluate risk of malignancy.…”

Section: Factors Associated With Clinical Importancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiologist-initiated double reading of abdominal CT: retrospective analysis of the clinical importance of changes to radiology reports

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMisinterpretation of radiological examinations is an important contributing factor to diagnostic errors. Consultant radiologists in Norwegian hospitals frequently request second reads by colleagues in real time. Our objective was to estimate the frequency of clinically important changes to radiology reports produced by these prospectively obtained double readings.MethodsWe retrospectively compared the preliminary and final reports from 1071 consecutive double-read abdominal CT examinations of surgical patients at five public hospitals in Norway. Experienced gastrointestinal surgeons rated the clinical importance of changes from the preliminary to final report. The severity of the radiological findings in clinically important changes was classified as increased, unchanged or decreased.ResultsChanges were classified as clinically important in 146 of 1071 reports (14%). Changes to 3 reports (0.3%) were critical (demanding immediate action), 35 (3%) were major (implying a change in treatment) and 108 (10%) were intermediate (requiring further investigations). The severity of the radiological findings was increased in 118 (81%) of the clinically important changes. Important changes were made less frequently when abdominal radiologists were first readers, more frequently when they were second readers, and more frequently to urgent examinations.ConclusionA 14% rate of clinically important changes made during double reading may justify quality assurance of radiological interpretation. Using expert second readers and a targeted selection of urgent cases and radiologists reading outside their specialty may increase the yield of discrepant cases.

show abstract

Section: Factors Associated With Clinical Importancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 10 Some mammography screening programmes conduct independent double reading, in which the readers are blinded to the interpretation of their colleague. 11 In the USA, it is a requirement for department credentialing by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%