Clinical importance of reinterpretation of body CT scans obtained elsewhere in patients referred for care at a tertiary cancer center

Radiology

Volumn 210, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 109-112

  Gollub, Marc J ^a   Panicek, David M ^a   Bach, Aríadne M ^a   Penaiver, Angelica ^a   Castellino, Ronald A ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography (CT), clinical effectiveness; Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Images, interpretation; Radiology and radiologists, outcomes studies

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HEALTH CENTER; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LYMPHADENOPATHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0032929293     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.210.1.r99ja47109     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Castellino RA. Official review of outside studies (opinion). Invest Radiol 1994; 1:80-81.
2. Farrin MA, Janssen DA. Curbside consultations: a closer look at a common practice (commentary). JAMA 1996; 275:145-147.
3. Hricak H, kalbhen CL, Scheidler JE, Schwartz LH, Yu KK, Adams D. Value of expert interpretation in abdominal oncologic imaging: a multicenter study (abstr). Radiology 1997; 205(P):225.
4. Wakeley CJ, Jones AM, Kabala JE, Prince D, Goddard PR. Audit of the value of double reading magnetic resonance imaging films. Br J Radiol 1995; 68:358-360.
5. Kalbhen CL, Yetter EM, Love L, Moncada R, Lawson TL, Albain KA. Outside film reviews of thoracic imaging studies in oncology patients (abstr). AJR 1998; 170(suppl):77.
6. Piccoli CW, Schweitzer ME, Mitchell DG, Ricci JA, Levin DC, Harford RJ. Peer-review quality assessment method for MR imaging: lower-extremity results from 31 centers (abstr). Radiology 1993; 189(P): 136.
7. Bechtold RE, Chen MYM, Ott DJ, et al. Interpretation of abdominal CT: analysis of errors and their causes. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21:681-685.
8. Bollen ECM, Goei R, Hof-Grootenboer BE, Versteege CWM, Engelshove HA, Lamers RJS. Interobserver variability and accuracy of computed tomographic assessment of nodal status in lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 58:158-162.
9. Kandis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-174.
10. Müller NL, Evans KG. Interobserver variability and accuracy of computed tomographic assessment of nodal status in lung cancer (invited commentary). Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 58:162.
11. Hilton S, Herr HW, Teitcher JB, Begg CB, Castellino RA. CT detection of retroperitoneal lymph node metastases in patients with clinical stage I testicular nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: assessment of size and distribution criteria. AJR 1997; 169:521-525.
12. Glazer GM, Gross BH, Quint LE, Francis IR, Bookstein FL, Orringer MB. Normal mediastinal lymph nodes: number and size according to American Thoracic Society mapping. AJR 1985; 144:261-265.