Radiologist and Sonographer Interpretation Discrepancies for Biliary Sonographic Findings

Dawkins, Adrian; George, Nanditha; Ganesh, Halemane; Ayoob, Andres; Lee, James; Nair, Rashmi; Kiper, Cassie; Duncan, Kevin; Stevens, Scott D.

doi:10.1097/ruq.0000000000000280

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The high accuracy of sonographers’ diagnostic opinion has been documented in numerous studies across all subspecialties with sonographers often demonstrating comparable standard of diagnostic performance to that of radiologists . This raises important questions about the level of oversight that sonographers require by imaging specialists such as radiologists or other sonologists and the required staffing levels and departmental structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do radiologists need to review abdominal ultrasound examinations reported as ‘normal’ by the sonographer?

Nečas

Shen

Ong

et al. 2020

Australas J Ultrason Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Sonographers demonstrate a high standard of diagnostic performance and work with a considerable degree of professional independence. In Australasia, sonographers typically generate a preliminary report which is reviewed by the radiologist who issues a final report. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiologist's review is required in cases reported as normal by the sonographer. Methods This study was a retrospective review of 1000 abdominal US examinations considered normal by sonographers that were subsequently reported by radiologists. Any findings reported by radiologists that were not reported by sonographers were analysed and separated into errors or discrepancies according to commonly accepted definition. Results The 1000 abdominal examinations included 244 complete abdominal, 200 hepatobiliary, 506 urinary tract and 50 other abdominal examinations. Patients’ age ranged from < 1 to 94 years (mean = 35 years, median = 32 years). US examinations were performed by any one of 14 sonographers with 1–21 years (mean = 6 years, median = 7 years) of clinical experience. Two diagnostic errors were made by sonographers and two errors by radiologists. In no single case did the radiologist uncover a case of an acute or serious illness, illness requiring admission or urgent clinical review, nor did the radiologist identify the cause for the presenting symptoms. Eighteen discrepancies were found, but these were of trivial nature and most were rated by specialist clinicians as irrelevant. Conclusion Sonographers are accurate in distinguishing normal abdominal US examinations. The involvement of a radiologist in a second reading of normal abdominal US examinations is unnecessary.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do radiologists need to review abdominal ultrasound examinations reported as ‘normal’ by the sonographer?

Nečas

Shen

Ong

et al. 2020

Australas J Ultrason Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 Currently, there are no articles in the literature which compare sonographer's opinions and radiologists' reports regarding US LI-RADS cat and vis scores. In a broader search, a retrospective analysis of biliary sonographic findings of 400 scans by Dawkins et al 19 found a discrepancy rate of 15.5% between the preliminary interpretation by sonographers and the final radiologist's report.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interobserver Agreement Between Primary Sonographers and Secondary Overreaders for Screening and Surveillance Liver Ultrasounds Using Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System

Dawkins

Nelson

Gulati

et al. 2022

Ultrasound Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors aim to identify if primary sonographers and secondary reviewers, both radiologists and sonographers, are likely to assign the same Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (US LI-RADS) scores for liver surveillance ultrasounds. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Sonographers were familiarized with US LI-RADS via radiologist-led lectures. Three sonographers prospectively scored 170 screening examinations using US LI-RADS recommendations. Scans were retrospectively rescored by a fourth sonographer and a radiologist, both of whom were blinded to the original scores. Results were analyzed with weighted and nonweighted Cohen kappa statistical analysis methods. There was near-perfect agreement between primary and secondary sonographers and primary sonographer and radiologist (kappa of 0.87 and 0.92, respectively) for US LI-RADS category (cat) scores. However, only substantial and moderate agreements were noted for visualization (vis) scores between primary and secondary sonographers and primary sonographer and radiologist (weighted kappa of 0.73 and 0.48, respectively). There was vis score disagreement between the primary sonographer and radiologist in 60 (35.3%) cases. In 35 (20%) cases, the radiologist assigned a lower/more conservative vis score. There was vis score disagreement between the primary and secondary reviewing sonographers in 30 (17.6%) cases. In 12 (7%) cases, the secondary sonographer assigned a more conservative vis score. Although a good degree of concordance was noted between the groups, radiologists will need to generate their own US LI-RADS scoring to accurately reflect their impression and appropriately steer management.

show abstract

“…Sonographers are highly accurate diagnosticians whose diagnostic performance in US has been shown to be on a par with that of radiologists in a number of studies. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] There is therefore no reason to suspect that under the additional pressure of a pandemic, the sonographer's diagnostic performance would somehow become compromised.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routine disclosure statements about ultrasound examinations during Covid‐19 pandemic are unhelpful and should be avoided

Nečas

2021

Sonography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various routine disclosure statements relating to the performance of ultrasound (US) during the COVID-19 pandemic are finding their way into radiology reports.These statements usually suggest that US examinations during the pandemic, or on a COVID-19 positive patient, are somehow limited and urge the clinicians to reflect on these considerations when accepting radiology reports. However, such disclosure statements are generally unhelpful to clinicians and are not consistent with the realities of current clinical US practice. This article provides a critique of these disclosure statements and concludes by discouraging sonographers and radiologists from making such statements as a routine part of their clinical ultrasound reports.

show abstract

Radiologist and Sonographer Interpretation Discrepancies for Biliary Sonographic Findings

Abstract: The aim of this study was to determine the discrepancy rate that exists between the preliminary interpretation by sonographers and the subsequent final radiology interpretation for biliary sonographic findings.

Cited by 11 publications

References 9 publications

Do radiologists need to review abdominal ultrasound examinations reported as ‘normal’ by the sonographer?

Do radiologists need to review abdominal ultrasound examinations reported as ‘normal’ by the sonographer?

Interobserver Agreement Between Primary Sonographers and Secondary Overreaders for Screening and Surveillance Liver Ultrasounds Using Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System

Routine disclosure statements about ultrasound examinations during Covid‐19 pandemic are unhelpful and should be avoided

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About