Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Error review: can this improve reporting performance?

G R Tudor1, D B Finlay

  • 1Department of Radiology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK.

Clinical Radiology
|October 5, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Horner's syndrome following excision of a vagal paraganglionoma.

International journal of clinical practice·2002
Same author

Correlation of bone scintigraphy and histological findings in medial tibial syndrome.

British journal of sports medicine·2000
Same author

Ankle effusions following acute ankle injury.

European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine·2000
Same author

Bowel lesions: percutaneous US-guided 18-gauge needle biopsy--preliminary experience.

Radiology·1999
Same author

The value of indium-111-labelled leucocyte imaging and ultrasonography in the investigation of pyrexia of unknown origin.

The British journal of radiology·1998
Same author

The role of bone scintigraphy and plain radiography in intractable plantar fasciitis.

Nuclear medicine communications·1997
Same journal

Where can we improve? An evaluation of discrepancies between radiology resident and consultant reports for noncontrast head computed tomography (NCHCT) scans in the emergency department at a tertiary care centre.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Proton beam therapy: neuroradiology considerations and challenges.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Weight-based contrast media volume reduction in lower limb computed tomography angiography: a prospective feasibility study.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Diagnostic accuracy of flat panel computed tomography for acute stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Nuclear medicine techniques in gynaecological malignancy: a review of best practice.

Clinical radiology·2026
Same journal

Deep learning reconstruction dual-energy computed tomography for gastrointestinal system tumors: low-kiloelectron volt imaging vs routine imaging.

Clinical radiology·2026
See all related articles

Radiologists showed improved accuracy in reporting radiographs after reviewing their errors. While not statistically significant overall, error review suggests a benefit for individual performance in diagnostic imaging.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Imaging
  • Radiology
  • Diagnostic Accuracy

Background:

  • Radiologists' reporting performance is crucial for accurate diagnoses.
  • Continuous professional development is essential for maintaining and improving diagnostic skills.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the impact of error review on radiologists' reporting performance.
  • To determine if feedback on previous errors enhances diagnostic accuracy in plain radiograph interpretation.

Main Methods:

  • Ten consultant radiologists reported 50 plain radiographs (18 normal, 32 abnormal).
  • Radiologists reviewed their initial errors and re-reported the same series after 4-5 months.
  • Accuracy was assessed against established diagnoses, with statistical analysis using the Chi-square test.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Seven radiologists improved their accuracy; two showed decreased accuracy, and one had no change.
  • Mean accuracy increased from 82.2% pre-review to 88% post-review.
  • A 63% improvement in accuracy was observed for radiographs initially reported with errors.

Conclusions:

  • Error review appears beneficial for radiologists, though overall statistical significance was not reached.
  • Individual improvements suggest value, but some errors were introduced post-review, masking the trend.
  • Further investigation into feedback mechanisms may optimize performance enhancement in radiology.