Tachakra S, Mukherjee P, Smith C, Dutton D
Accident and Emergency Department, Central Middlesex Hospital, Acton Lane, London NW10 7NS, UK.
Eur J Emerg Med. 2002 Jun;9(2):131-4. doi: 10.1097/00063110-200206000-00006.
The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of an accident and emergency (A&E) consultant in interpreting plain skeletal radiographs with that of a consultant radiologist (CR). It took the form of a retrospective study of 2133 radiographs taken in a Minor Injury Unit (MIU). A&E consultant reports on these films were compared with those of a CR and also with a gold standard. The A&E consultant diagnoses achieved an accuracy of 98.5% (CR 97.8%), sensitivity of 97.8% (CR 98.1%), specificity of 98.8% (CR 97.7%), positive predictive value of 97.3% (CR 95.1%) and negative predictive value of 98.97% (CR 99.07%) (gold standard of 100%). In conclusion, the A&E consultant reports of plain skeletal radiographs generated from an MIU were as accurate as those of a consultant radiologist. This could have significant implications for the wet reporting of A&E departmental radiographs.
本研究的目的是比较急诊(A&E)顾问解读普通骨骼X光片的准确性与放射科顾问(CR)的准确性。该研究采用回顾性研究形式,对在轻伤科室(MIU)拍摄的2133张X光片进行研究。将A&E顾问对这些X光片的报告与CR的报告以及金标准报告进行比较。A&E顾问的诊断准确率为98.5%(CR为97.8%),敏感性为97.8%(CR为98.1%),特异性为98.8%(CR为97.7%),阳性预测值为97.3%(CR为95.1%),阴性预测值为98.97%(CR为99.07%)(金标准为100%)。总之,MIU生成的普通骨骼X光片的A&E顾问报告与放射科顾问的报告一样准确。这可能对急诊科室X光片的湿读报告产生重大影响。