Must new radiographs be compared with all previous radiographs, or only with the most recently obtained radiographs?

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 174, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 611-615

  Berlin, Leonard ^a,b  

^a RUSH NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b RUSH MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS;

EID: 0033995575     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.174.3.1740611     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Blankshain v. Radiology and Nuclear Consultants Ltd., 95L-4851 (Ill. 1997)
2. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: standard of care. AJR 1998;170:275-278
3. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: comparing new radiographs with those obtained previously. AJR 1999;172:3-6
4. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1995
5. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for the performance of pediatric and adult chest radiography. In: Standards. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1997
6. White K, Berbaum K, Smith WL. The role of previous radiographs and reports in the interpretation of current radiographs. Invest Radiol 1994;29: 263-265
7. Hunter TB, Boyle RR. The value of reading the previous radiology report. AJR 1988;150:697-698
8. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: vicarious liability. AJR 1997;169:621-624