Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Analysis of “visible in retrospect” to monitor false-negative findings in radiological reports
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Analysis of “visible in retrospect” to monitor false-negative findings in radiological reports
Do you wish to request the book?
Analysis of “visible in retrospect” to monitor false-negative findings in radiological reports
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Analysis of “visible in retrospect” to monitor false-negative findings in radiological reports
2023
Overview
PurposeFalse-negative findings in radiological reports can lead to serious adverse patient outcomes. We determined the frequency and tendency of false-negative findings in radiological reports by searching for words related to “visible in retrospect”.MethodsIn the period of 34 months, we extracted radiological reports containing words related to “visible in retrospect”. Of these reports, we extracted false-negative findings that were not described in past reports and were first detected retrospectively. Misinterpretations were excluded. The occurrences of the terms that we identified were analyzed by all examinations, modality, month, and anatomical and lesion classifications were analyzed.ResultsOf the 135,251 examinations, 941 reports (0.71%) with 962 findings were detected, with an average of 1.4 findings per business day. By modality, 713 of 81,899 (0.87%) CT examinations, 208 of 36,174 (0.57%) MR, 34 of 9,585 (0.35%) FDG-PET-CT, 2 of 2,258 (0.09%) digital radiography, and 5 of 5,335 (0.09%) other nuclear medicine examinations were found. By anatomical classification, there were 383 (40%) in chest, 353 (37%) in abdomen, 162 (17%) in head, 42 (4.4%) in face and neck, 9 (0.93%) in extremity, and 13 (1.4%) in others. By lesion classification, we identified 665 (69%) for localized lesion, 170 (18%) for vascular lesion, 83 (8.6%) for inflammatory lesion, 14 (1.5%) for traumatic lesion, 12 (1.2%) for organ dysfunction, 11 (1.1%) for degenerative lesion, and 7 (0.7%) for the others. Notable high-frequency specific site diseases by modality were 210 (22%) of localized lesions in lung on CT.ConclusionOur results demonstrated that missed lung localized lesions on CT, which account for about a fifth of false-negative findings, were the most common false-negative finding.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
