Approaches to the classification of errors in radiology: a review
https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2024-15-2-19-24
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In many cases physicians make a diagnosis using the results of radiology. At the same time, the interpretation of medical images can be very variable in some cases, contain inaccuracies, which can lead to incorrect patient treatment tactics. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to show different classification of diagnostic errors in radiology.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search for scientific publications was carried out in the information and analytical systems PubMed, elibrary, Google Scholar using the keywords: radiology errors, x-ray errors, diagnostic errors in radiology, errors in radiation diagnostics, errors in radiology.
RESULTS: An analysis of scientific publications showed different approaches to the classification of errors in radiology. The main historical aspects of the formation of the first such classifications, their improvement over time, the lack of a single agreed upon classification and the critical difficulties of their use are presented.
CONCLUTIONS: This literature review presents various approaches to the classification of errors in radiation diagnostics, which can be useful for understanding the causes of their occurrence, as well as for the development of systems for their identification, analysis and prevention, which will subsequently lead to minimizing the frequency of their development and reducing the degree of damage caused.
About the Authors
V. A. Nechaev
Moscow City Hospital named after S. S. Yudin
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Valentin A. Nechaev — Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Head of the Center for Complex Diagnostics, Radiologist
115446, Moscow, Kolomenskoye passage, 4
A. Yu. Vasiliev
Russian University of Medicine; Central Radiology Research Institute
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksander Yu. Vasiliev — Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director; Professor of the Department of Radiation Diagnostics
127206, Moscow, st. Vucheticha, 9a
References
1. Itri J.N., Tappouni R.R., McEachern R.O. et al. Fundamentals of diagnostic error in imaging // RadioGraphics. 2018. Vol. 38, No. 6. P. 1845–1865. doi: 10.1148/rg.2018180021.
2. Onder O., Yarasir Y., Azizova A. et al. Errors, discrepancies and underlying bias in radiology with case examples: a pictorial review // Insights Imaging. 2021. Vol. 12, No. 1. P. 51. doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-00986-8.
3. Patra A., Premkumar M., Keshava S. N. et al. Radiology reporting errors: learning from report addenda // Indian J. Radiol. Imaging. 2021. Vol. 31, No. 2. P. 333– 344. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1734351.
4. Provenzale J., Kranz P. Understanding errors in diagnostic radiology: proposal of a classification scheme and application to emergency radiology // Emergency Radiology. 2011. Vol. 18, No. 5. P. 403–408. doi: 10.1007/s10140-011-0974-3.
5. Degnan A.J., Ghobadi E.H., Hardy P. et al. Perceptual and interpretive error in diagnostic radiology — causes and potential solutions // Acad. Radiol. 2019. Vol. 26, No. 6. P. 833–845. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.11.006.
6. Berlin L. Radiologic errors, past, present and future // Diagnosis. 2014. Vol. 1, No. 1. P. 79–84. doi: 10.1515/dx-2013-0012.
7. Waite S., Grigorian A., Alexander R.G. et al. Analysis of perceptual expertise in radiology — current knowledge and a new perspective // Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019. Vol. 13. P. 213. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00213.
8. Brady A.P. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? // Insights Imaging. 2017. Vol. 8, No. 1. P. 171–182. doi: 10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1.
9. Cooley R.N., Agnew C.H., Rios G. Diagnostic accuracy of the barium enema study in carcinoma of the colon and rectum. // Am. J. Roentgenol. 1960. Vol. 84. P. 316–331.
10. Lehr J.L., Lodwick G.S., Farrell C. et al. Direct measurement of the effect of film miniaturization on diagnostic accuracy // Radiology. 1976. Vol. 118. P. 257–263. doi: 10.1148/118.2.257.
11. Muhm J.R., Miller W.E., Fontana R.S. et al. Lung cancer detected during a screening program using four-month chest radiographs // Radiology. 1983. Vol. 148. P. 609–615. doi: 10.1148/radiology.148.3.6308709.
12. Borgstede J.P., Lewis R.S., Bhargavan M., Sunshine J.H. RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates // J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2004. V53ol. 1, No. 1. P. 59–65. doi: 10.1016/S1546-1440(03)00002-4.
13. Kim Y.W., Mansfield L.T. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors // Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014. Vol. 202, No. 3. P. 465–470. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11493.
14. Bruno M.A., Walker E.A., Abujudeh H.H. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction // RadioGraphics. 2015. Vol. 35, No. 6. P. 1668–1676. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015150023.
15. Uchevatkin A.A., Yudin A.L., Afanas’yeva N.I., Yumatova E.A. Shades of grey: how and why we make mistakes, Medical Visualization, 2020, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 123–145 (In Russ.). doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-2020-3-123-145.
16. Abujudeh H.H., Boland G.W., Kaewlai R. et al. Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists // Eur. Radiol. 2010. Vol. 20, No. 8. P. 1952–1957. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1763-1.
17. Pinto A., Brunese L. Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology // World J. Radiol. 2010. Vol. 2, No. 10. P. 377–383. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v2.i10.377.
18. Tuddenham W.J. Roentgen image perception — a personal survey of the problem // Radiol. Cl. N. Amer. 1969. Vol. 7. P. 499–501.
19. Renfrew D.L., Franken E.A., Berbaum K.S. et al. Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference // Radiology. 1992. Vol. 183. P. 145–150. doi: 10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549661.
20. Brook O.R., O’Connell A.M., Thornton E. et al. Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice // RadioGraphics. 2010. Vol. 30, No. 5. P. 1401–1410. doi: 10.1148/rg.305105013.
21. Briggs G.M., Flynn P.A., Worthington M. et al. The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value? // Clin. Radiol. 2008. Vol. 63. No. 7. P. 791–795. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.12.002.
22. Morozov S.P., Vetsheva N.N., Ledikhova N.V. Assessing the quality of X-ray and radiological studies. Series «Best practices in radiological and instrumental diagnostics», Vol. 48, Moscow, 2019, 47 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Nechaev V.A., Vasiliev A.Yu. Approaches to the classification of errors in radiology: a review. Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2024;15(2):19-24. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2024-15-2-19-24
Views:
318
Email this article 