Huhtanen Jarno T, Nyman Mikko, Sequeiros Roberto Blanco, Koskinen Seppo K, Pudas Tomi K, Kajander Sami, Niemi Pekka, Löyttyniemi Eliisa, Aronen Hannu J, Hirvonen Jussi
Faculty of Health and Well-Being, Turku University of Applied Sciences, 20520 Turku, Finland.
Department of Radiology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Oct 13;13(20):3207. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13203207.
(1) Background: The aim of this study was to compare the competence in appendicular trauma radiograph image interpretation between radiology specialists and residents. (2) Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we collected radiology reports from radiology specialists (N = 506) and residents (N = 500) during 2018-2021. As a reference standard, we used the consensus of two subspecialty-level musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists, who reviewed all original reports. (3) Results: A total of 1006 radiograph reports were reviewed by the two subspecialty-level MSK radiologists. Out of the 1006 radiographs, 41% were abnormal. In total, 67 radiographic findings were missed (6.7%) and 31 findings were overcalled (3.1%) in the original reports. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.86, 0.92, 0.91 and 0.88 respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between radiology specialists' and residents' competence in interpretation ( = 0.44). However, radiology specialists reported more subtle cases than residents did ( = 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences between errors made in the morning, evening, or night shifts ( = 0.57). (4) Conclusions: This study found a lack of major discrepancies between radiology specialists and residents in radiograph interpretation, although there were differences between MSK regions and in subtle or obvious radiographic findings. In addition, missed findings found in this study often affected patient treatment. Finally, there are MSK regions where the sensitivity or specificity is below 90%, and these should raise concerns and highlight the need for double reading and should be taken into consideration in radiology education.
(1) 背景:本研究旨在比较放射科专家与住院医师对四肢创伤X光片图像解读的能力。(2) 方法:在这项多中心回顾性队列研究中,我们收集了2018年至2021年期间放射科专家(N = 506)和住院医师(N = 500)的放射学报告。作为参考标准,我们采用了两位亚专业级肌肉骨骼(MSK)放射科医生的共识,他们审查了所有原始报告。(3) 结果:两位亚专业级MSK放射科医生共审查了1006份X光片报告。在这1006张X光片中,41% 为异常。原始报告中总共漏诊了67项影像学表现(6.7%),31项表现被过度诊断(3.1%)。敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为0.86、0.92、0.91和0.88。放射科专家和住院医师在解读能力方面无统计学显著差异(P = 0.44)。然而,放射科专家报告的细微病例比住院医师多(P = 0.04)。早班、晚班或夜班出现的错误之间无统计学显著差异(P = 0.57)。(4) 结论:本研究发现,尽管在MSK区域以及细微或明显的影像学表现方面存在差异,但放射科专家和住院医师在X光片解读方面没有重大差异。此外,本研究中发现的漏诊结果往往会影响患者的治疗。最后,存在一些MSK区域,其敏感性或特异性低于90%,这些应引起关注并突出双重读片的必要性,且在放射学教育中应予以考虑。