Body MRI Subspecialty Reinterpretations at a Tertiary Care Center: Discrepancy Rates and Error Types.

OBJECTIVE. Radiology departments in tertiary care centers are frequently asked to perform secondary interpretations of imaging studies, particularly when a patient is transferred from a community hospital. Discrepancy rates in radiology vary widely, with low rates reported for preliminary resident reports that are overread by attending radiologists (2-6%) and higher rates (up to 56%) for secondary interpretations. Abdominal and pelvic imaging and cross-sectional imaging have the highest discrepancy rates. The purpose of our study was to determine the discrepancy rate and the most common reasons for discrepancies between abdominal and pelvic MRI reports obtained from outside institutions and secondary interpretations of these reports by a fellowship-trained radiologist at a tertiary care center. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We retrospectively identified 395 secondary MRI reports from January 2015 to December 2018 that were labeled as body MRI examinations at a tertiary care center. Thirty-eight cases were excluded for various reasons, including incorrect categorization or lack of outside report. We reviewed the outside reports, compared them with the secondary interpretations, and categorized the cases as discrepancy or no discrepancy. The discrepancies were subdivided into the most likely reason for the error using previously published categories; these categories were also divided into perceptive and cognitive errors. RESULTS. Of the 357 included cases, 246 (68.9%) had at least one discrepancy. The most common reason for error was faulty reasoning (34.3%), which is a cognitive error characterized by misidentifying an abnormality. Satisfaction of search, which is a perceptive error, was the most common reason for second discrepancies (15.0%). CONCLUSION. Secondary interpretations of body MR images at a tertiary care center identify a high rate of discrepancies, with cognitive error types predominating.

Has the Objective Quality of Evidence in Imaging Papers Changed Over the Last 20 Years?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine if both evidence level (EL) as well as clinical efficacy (CE) of imaging manuscripts have changed over the last 20 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With our review of medical literature, Institutional Review Board approval was waived, and no informed consent was required. Using Web of Science, we determined the 10 highest impact factor imaging journals. For each journal the 10 most cited and 10 average cited papers were compared for the following years: 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014. EL was graded using the same criteria as the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Wright et al., 2003). CE was graded using the criteria of Thornbury and Fryback (1991). Statistical software R and package lme4 were used to fit mixed regression models with fixed effects for group, year, and a random effect for journal. RESULTS: EL has improved -0.03 every year on average (P < .001). The more cited papers had better ELs (group effect = -0.23, SE 0.09, P = .011). CE is lower in top cited compared to average cited articles, although the differences were not statistically significant (group effect = -0.14, SE = 0.09, P = .16). CE level increased modestly in both groups over this 20-year time period (0.06 per year, SE = 0.007, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Over the last 20 years, imaging journal articles have improved modestly in quality of evidence, as measured by EL and CE.

Blood cadmium and depressive symptoms: Confounded by cigarette smoking.

Our aim was to explore the association between blood cadmium (BCd) and depressive symptoms, adjusting for pack years and blood cotinine, and also stratifying by smoking status. Using data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2012, we categorized depressive symptoms using the PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) survey and modeled depressive symptoms in relation to BCd adjusted for blood cotinine, pack years of smoking, and other covariates. We also stratified by self-reported smoking status (current, former, never). There were 11,209 subjects from 2005 to 2012, age ≥ 18 with PHQ-9, smoking, and blood cadmium data available. 876 (7.8%) met criteria for depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were associated with BCd levels in a crude model and with adjustment for pack years and cotinine. The association disappeared when analyzed among current, former, or never smokers. Consistent with the literature, we found an association between BCd and depressive symptoms; however, that association disappears in analyses stratified by smoking status. This suggests residual confounding may be present. It is important to stratify by smoking status when investigating health outcomes associated with BCd.

Mentorship in Radiology.

Mentoring is an extremely important component of academic medicine, including radiology, yet it is not specifically emphasized in radiology training, and many academic radiology departments in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere do not have formal mentoring programs for medical students, residents, fellows, or junior faculty. The purpose of this article is to overview the current status of mentorship in radiology, to discuss the importance of mentorship at multiple levels and its potential benefits in particular, as well as how to conduct a successful mentor-mentee relationship. The literature on mentorship in radiology and in academic medicine in general is reviewed.