Related Experiment Video For Diagnostic errors
Updated: Apr 10, 2026

Fundus Photography as a Convenient Tool to Study Microvascular Responses to Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Epidemiological Studies
Published on: October 22, 2014
RECIST 1.1 assessments variability: a systematic pictorial review of blinded double reads
Antoine Iannessi1,2, Hubert Beaumont3, Christine Ojango2
1Cancer Center Antoine Lacassagne 33 Av. de Valombrose, 06100, Nice, France.
Abstract:
Reader variability is intrinsic to radiologic oncology assessments, necessitating measures to enhance consistency and accuracy. RECIST 1.1 criteria play a crucial role in mitigating this variability by standardizing evaluations, aiming to establish an accepted "truth" confirmed by histology or patient survival. Clinical trials utilize Blind Independent Centralized Review (BICR) techniques to manage variability, employing double reads and adjudicators to address inter-observer discordance effectively. It is essential to dissect the root causes of variability in response assessments, with a specific focus on the factors influencing RECIST evaluations. We propose proactive measures for radiologists to address variability sources such as radiologist expertise, image quality, and accessibility of contextual information, which significantly impact interpretation and assessment precision. Adherence to standardization and RECIST guidelines is pivotal in diminishing variability and ensuring uniform results across studies. Variability factors, including lesion selection, new lesion appearance, and confirmation bias, can have profound implications on assessment accuracy and interpretation, underscoring the importance of identifying and addressing these factors. Delving into the causes of variability aids in enhancing the accuracy and consistency of response assessments in oncology, underscoring the role of standardized evaluation protocols and mitigating risk factors that contribute to variability. Access to contextual information is crucial. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By understanding the causes of diagnosis variability, we can enhance the accuracy and consistency of response assessments in oncology, ultimately improving patient care and clinical outcomes. KEY POINTS: Baseline lesion selection and detection of new lesions play a major role in the occurrence of discordance. Image interpretation is influenced by contextual information, the lack of which can lead to diagnostic uncertainty. Radiologists must be trained in RECIST criteria to reduce errors and variability.
Related Concept Videos
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision
Assessment of apical radial pulse
The A-R pulse assessment involves simultaneous evaluation of the apical and radial pulses. When the apical and radial pulse rates vary, this assessment helps identify a pulse deficit.
Pre-Procedural Preparation
Random and Systematic Errors
Data Collection III
The principles to begin the physical assessment include conducting a comprehensive or problem-related history in a quiet, well-lit room, emphasizing privacy and comfort for the...
Methods of Documentation III: PIE
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...

