Discrepancies in Radiograph Interpretation Between Pediatric Radiologists and Pediatric Intensivists in the Pediatric or Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: In pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), patient management decisions are sometimes based on preliminary interpretations of radiographs by pediatric intensivists (PIs) before a formal interpretation by a pediatric radiologist (PR). OBJECTIVE: To quantify and classify discrepancies in radiographic interpretation between PRs and PIs in the PICU and NICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved multi-institutional prospective study included three PRs and PIs at two PICUs and three NICUs. Interpretations of chest and abdominal radiographs by PIs and PRs were recorded on online forms and compared. Discrepancies in interpretations were classified as "miss," "misinterpretation," or "overcall." The discrepancies were also categorized as "actionable" or "nonactionable" based on extrapolation of the ACR actionable reporting work group's list of actionable findings. RESULTS: In 960 radiographic interpretations, the total, nonactionable, and actionable discrepancy rates between PRs and PIs were 34.7%, 26.8%, and 7.9%, respectively. The most common actionable discrepancies were line or tube positions and identification and interpretation of parenchymal opacities in the lungs. Identification of air leaks in the PICU and differentiation of normal from abnormal bowel gas patterns in the NICU followed in frequency. Air leaks accounted for 1% of total discrepancies and 11% of actionable discrepancies. Most discrepancies were nonactionable and included retrocardiac atelectasis and mischaracterization of neonatal lung disease in the PICU and NICU, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the total discrepancy rate was high, most discrepancies were nonactionable. Actionable discrepancies were predominantly due to line and tube position, which should be an area of focused education.

Imaging findings in systemic childhood diseases presenting with dermatologic manifestations.

PURPOSE: Many childhood diseases often present with skin abnormalities with which radiologists are largely unfamiliar. Knowledge of associated dermatologic manifestations may aid the radiologist in confirming the diagnosis and recommending targeted imaging of affected organs. METHODS: We review the imaging findings in childhood diseases associated with dermatologic manifestations. FINDINGS: Diseases include dermatologic findings which herald underlying malignancy (Neuroblastoma, leukemia/lymphoma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis),are associated with risk of malignancy (Epidermolysis Bullosa, basal cell nevus syndrome, Cowden's syndrome, Tuberous Sclerosis),or indicate a systemic inflammatory/immune disorder (Kawasaki's disease, Henoch Schonlein Purpura, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, sarcoidosis, dermatomyositis and immune thrombocytopenic purpura). CONCLUSION: Familiarity with pertinent findings in childhood diseases presenting with dermatologic manifestations in childhood diseases aids the radiologist in confirming the diagnosis and guiding imaging workup.

Advanced neuroimaging in the clinic: critical appraisal of the evidence base.

The shortage of high-quality systematic reviews in the field of radiology limits evidence-based integration of imaging methods into clinical practice and may perpetuate misconceptions regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of imaging techniques for specific applications. Diffusion tensor imaging for patients with mild traumatic brain injury (DTI-mTBI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI for patients with glioma (DSC-glioma) are applications of quantitative neuroimaging, which similarly detect manifestations of disease where conventional neuroimaging techniques cannot. We performed a critical appraisal of reviews, based on the current evidence-based medicine methodology, addressing the ability of DTI-mTBI and DSC-glioma to (a) detect brain abnormalities and/or (b) predict clinical outcomes. 23 reviews of DTI-mTBI and 26 reviews of DSC-glioma met criteria for inclusion. All reviews addressed detection of brain abnormalities, whereas 12 DTI-mTBI reviews and 22 DSC-glioma reviews addressed prediction of a clinical outcome. All reviews were assessed using a critical appraisal worksheet consisting of 19 yes/no questions. Reviews were graded according to the total number of positive responses and the 2011 Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence criteria. Reviews addressing DTI-mTBI detection had moderate quality, while those addressing DSC-glioma were of low quality. Reviews addressing prediction of outcomes for both applications were of low quality. Five DTI-mTBI reviews, but only one review of DSC-glioma met criteria for classification as a meta-analysis/systematic/quantitative review.