Interpretation of abdominal CT: Analysis of errors and their causes

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 681-685

  Bechtold, Robert E ^a   Chen, Michael Y M ^a   Ott, David J ^a   Zagoria, Ronald J ^a   Scharling, Eric S ^a   Wolfman, Neil T ^a   Vining, David J ^a  

^a WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Abdomen; Computed tomography, physics and instrumentation; Image interpretation; Statistics

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL METHODS;

ABDOMEN; ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY, PHYSIC AND INSTRUMENTATION; CT-SCAN; ERROR RATE; IMAGE INTERPRETATION; ORGAN SYSTEMS; PATIENT MANAGEMENT; READER VARIABILITY; Χ+2$/ TEST;

ERRORS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPETENCE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL CARCINOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LIVER METASTASIS; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; PERITONEUM METASTASIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0031473145     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199709000-00001     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Gelfand DW, Ott DJ, Tritico R. Causes of error in gastrointestinal radiology. I. Upper gastrointestinal examination. Gastrointest Radiol 1980;5:91-7.
2. Ott DJ, Gelfand DW, Ramquist NA. Causes of error in gastrointestinal radiology. II. Barium enema examination. Gastrointest Radiol 1980;5:99-105.
3. Bollen ECM, Goei R, van 'tHof-Grootenboer E, Versteege CWM, Engelshove HA, Lamers RJ. Interobserver variability and accuracy of computed tomographic assessment of nodal status in lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 1994;58:158-62.
4. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AAS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-4.
5. Ott DJ, Chen YM, Gelfand DW, et al. Positive predictive value and examiner variability in diagnosing duodenal ulcer. AJR 1985;145: 1207-10.
6. Guyatt GH, Lefcoe M, Walter S, et al. Interobserver variation in the computed tomographic evaluation of mediastinal lymph node size in patients with potentially resectable lung cancer. Chest 1995; 107:116-9.
7. Jewett MA, Bombardier C, Caron D, et al. Potential for inter-observer and intra-observer variability in x-ray review to establish stone-free rates after lithotripsy. J Urol 1992;147:559-62.
8. Jacquet P, Jelinek JS, Steves MA, Sugarbaker PH. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer 1993;72:1631-6.
9. Lund B, Jacobsen K, Rasch L, Jensen F, Olesen K, Feldt-Rasmussen K. Correlation of abdominal ultrasound and computed tomography scans with second-or third-look laparotomy in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1990;37:279-83.
10. Collins CD, Wells AU, Hansell DM, et al. Observer variation in pattern type and extent of disease in fibrosing alveolitis on thin section computed tomography and chest radiography. Clin Radiol 1994;49:236-40.
11. Webb WR, Sarin M, Zerhouni EA, Heelan RT, Glazer GM, Gatsonis C. Interobserver variability in CT and MR staging of lung cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17:841-6.