Radiology Imaging Volume Changes During Discrete COVID-19 Pandemic Waves: Implications for the Delta Variant of Coronavirus and Future Pandemics

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiology imaging volumes at distinct time periods throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a function of regional COVID-19 hospitalizations.MethodsRadiology imaging volumes and statewide COVID-19 hospitalizations were collected, and four 28-day time periods throughout the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 were analyzed: pre–COVID-19 in January, the “first wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in April, the “recovery” time period in the summer of 2020 with a relative nadir of COVID-19 hospitalizations, and the “third wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in November. Imaging studies were categorized as inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department on the basis of patient location at the time of acquisition. A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare daily imaging volumes during each discrete 28-day time period.ResultsImaging volumes overall during the first wave of COVID-19 infections were 55% (11,098/20,011; P < .001) of pre–COVID-19 imaging volumes. Overall imaging volumes returned during the recovery time period to 99% (19,915/20,011; P = .725), and third-wave imaging volumes compared with the pre–COVID-19 period were significantly lower in the emergency department at 88.8% (7,951/8,955; P < .001), significantly higher for outpatients at 115.7% (8,818/7,621; P = .008), not significantly different for inpatients at 106% (3,650/3,435; P = .053), and overall unchanged when aggregated together at 102% (20,419/20,011; P = .629).ConclusionsMedical imaging rebounded after the first wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, with relative stability of utilization over the ensuing phases of the pandemic. As widespread COVID-19 vaccination continues to occur, future surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations will likely have a negligible impact on imaging utilization.     

Increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department setting during COVID-19

IntroductionCOVID-19 has resulted in decreases in absolute imaging volumes, however imaging utilization on a per-patient basis has not been reported. Here we compare per-patient imaging utilization, characterized by imaging studies and work relative value units (wRVUs), in an emergency department (ED) during a COVID-19 surge to the same period in 2019.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients presenting to the ED from April 1–May 1, 2020 and 2019. Patients were stratified into three primary subgroups: all patients (n = 9580, n = 5686), patients presenting with respiratory complaints (n = 1373, n = 2193), and patients presenting without respiratory complaints (n = 8207, n = 3493). The primary outcome was imaging studies/patient and wRVU/patient. Secondary analysis was by disposition and COVID status. Comparisons were via the Wilcoxon rank-sum or Chi-squared tests.ResultsThe total patients, imaging exams, and wRVUs during the 2020 and 2019 periods were 5686 and 9580 (−41%), 6624 and 8765 (−24%), and 4988 and 7818 (−36%), respectively, and the percentage patients receiving any imaging was 67% and 51%, respectively (p < .0001). In 2020 there was a 170% relative increase in patients presenting with respiratory complaints. In 2020, patients without respiratory complaints generated 24% more wRVU/patient (p < .0001) and 33% more studies/patient (p < .0001), highlighted by 38% more CTs/patient.ConclusionWe report increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department during COVID-19, particularly in patients without respiratory complaints.     

Recovery of outpatient imaging utilization during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, Radiology practices experienced marked reductions in outpatient imaging volumes. Our purpose was to evaluate the timing, rate, and degree of recovery of outpatient imaging during the first wave of the pandemic. We also sought to ascertain the relationship of outpatient imaging recovery to the incidence of COVID-19 cases.MethodsRetrospective study of outpatient imaging volumes in a large healthcare system was performed from January 1, 2019-August 25, 2020. Dataset was split to compare Pre-COVID (weeks 1–9), Peak-COVID (weeks 10–15) and Recovery-COVID (weeks 16–34) periods. Chi-square and Independent-samples t-tests compared weekly outpatient imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019. Regression analyses assessed the rate of decline and recovery in Peak-COVID and Recovery-COVID periods, respectively.ResultsTotal outpatient imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1–34) was 327,738 exams, compared to 440,314 in 2019. The 2020 mean weekly imaging volumes were significantly decreased in Peak-COVID (p = 0.0148) and Recovery-COVID (p = 0.0003) periods. Mean weekly decline rate was −2580 exams/week and recovery rate was +617 exams/week. The 2020 Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period had an average decrease of 36.5% (4813.4/13,178.6) imaging exams/week and total estimated decrease of 120,335 exams. Significant inverse correlation (−0.8338, p < 0.0001) was seen between positive-tested COVID-19 cases and imaging utilization with 1-week lag during Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period.ConclusionRecovery of outpatient imaging volume during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic showed a gradual return to pre-pandemic levels over the course of 3–4 months. The rate of imaging utilization was inversely associated with new positive-tested COVID-19 cases with a 1-week lag.     

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on radiology research: An Italian survey

PurposeTo understand how COVID-19 pandemic has changed radiology research in Italy.MethodsA questionnaire (n = 19 questions) was sent to all members of the Italian Society of Radiology two months after the first Italian national lockdown was lifted.ResultsA total of 327 Italian radiologists took part in the survey (mean age: 49 ± 12 years). After national lockdown, the working-flow came back to normal in the vast majority of cases (285/327, 87.2%). Participants reported that a total of 462 radiological trials were recruiting patients at their institutions prior to COVID-19 outbreak, of which 332 (71.9%) were stopped during the emergency. On the other hand, 252 radiological trials have been started during the pandemic, of which 156 were non-COVID-19 trials (61.9%) and 96 were focused on COVID-19 patients (38.2%). The majority of radiologists surveyed (61.5%) do not conduct research. Of the radiologists who carried on research activities, participants reported a significant increase of the number of hours per week spent for research purposes during national lockdown (mean 4.5 ± 8.9 h during lockdown vs. 3.3 ± 6.8 h before lockdown; p = .046), followed by a significant drop after the lockdown was lifted (3.2 ± 6.5 h per week, p = .035). During national lockdown, 15.6% of participants started new review articles and completed old papers, 14.1% completed old works, and 8.9% started new review articles. Ninety-six surveyed radiologists (29.3%) declared to have submitted at least one article during COVID-19 emergency.ConclusionThis study shows the need to support radiology research in challenging scenarios like COVID-19 emergency.     

Development of a valid and reliable test to assess trauma radiograph interpretation performance

ObjectivesThe purpose of this investigation was to develop and examine the preliminary validity and reliability among radiographers of a test to assess trauma radiograph interpretation performance suitable for use among health professionals.MethodsStage 1 examined 14,159 consecutive appendicular and axial examinations from a hospital emergency department over a 12 month period to quantify a typical anatomical region case-mix of trauma radiographs. A sample of radiographic cases representative of affected anatomical regions was then developed into the Image Interpretation Test (IIT). Stage 2 involved prospective investigations of the IIT's reliability (inter-rater, intra-rater, internal consistency) and validity (concurrent) among 41 radiographers.ResultsThe IIT included 60 cases. The median (interquartile range) clinical experience of participants was 5 (2–10) years. Case scores were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90). Favourable inter-rater reliability (kappa > 0.70 for 58/60 cases, Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.99 for total score) and intra-rater reliability (kappa > 0.90 for 60/60 cases, ICC > 0.99 for total score) was observed. There was a positive association between radiographers' confidence in image interpretation and IIT score (coefficient = 1.52, r-squared = 0.60, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe IIT developed during this investigation included a selection of radiographic cases consistent with anatomical regions represented in an adult trauma case-mix. This study has also provided foundational preliminary evidence to support the reliability and validity of the IIT among radiographers. The findings suggest that it is possible to assess image interpretation performance of adult trauma radiographs with this test.     

Longitudinal Resilience and Burnout in Radiology Residents

PurposeThe aims of this study were to determine resilience levels of radiology residents at the start of radiology residency, investigate changes in resilience and burnout during residency, and assess the relationship between resilience and burnout among radiology residents.MethodsDiagnostic radiology residents were invited to participate in online surveys from 2016 to 2019. Resilience was assessed using the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale. Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory–Human Services Survey. For each data set, genders’ scores were compared using either analysis of variance or Kruskal–Wallis tests. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to explore the correlations between resilience and burnout.ResultsWomen and men had no statistically significant difference among baseline resilience scores (P = .78). However, there was a statistically significant overall decrease in resilience scores among women (P = .002). Baseline Maslach Burnout Inventory–Human Services Survey scores indicated that residents began residency without frequent symptoms of burnout. There was no statistically significant temporal change across subjects among burnout scores in any scale (P ≥ .09 for all) or between women and men (P ≥ .37 for all interactions). However, among women, there was a statistically significant difference in depersonalization scores during training (P = .009). Additionally, higher resilience scores were associated with a greater sense of personal achievement (r = .52) and less emotional exhaustion (r = −.56) and depersonalization (r = −.59).ConclusionsThe results of this study demonstrate that gender differences in resilience and burnout occur during radiology residency and that resilience has a protective effect against experiencing symptoms of burnout. Radiology residency programs should consider building longitudinal resilience for all trainees, especially women.     

Trends in Academic Productivity Among Radiologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PurposeThere is a scarcity of literature examining changes in radiologist research productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study aimed to investigate changes in academic productivity as measured by publication volume before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis single-center, retrospective cohort study included the publication data of 216 researchers consisting of associate professors, assistant professors, and professors of radiology. Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test was used to identify changes in publication volume between the 1-year-long defined prepandemic period (publications between May 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020) and COVID-19 pandemic period (May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021).ResultsThere was a significantly increased mean annual volume of publications in the pandemic period (5.98, SD = 7.28) compared with the prepandemic period (4.98, SD = 5.53) (z = ?2.819, P = .005). Subset analysis demonstrated a similar (17.4%) increase in publication volume for male researchers when comparing the mean annual prepandemic publications (5.10, SD = 5.79) compared with the pandemic period (5.99, SD = 7.60) (z = ?2.369, P = .018). No statistically significant changes were found in similar analyses with the female subset.DiscussionSignificant increases in radiologist publication volume were found during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the year before. Changes may reflect an overall increase in academic productivity in response to clinical and imaging volume ramp down.     

Reducing image interpretation errors – Do communication strategies undermine this?

IntroductionErrors in the interpretation of diagnostic images in the emergency department are a persistent problem internationally. To address this issue, a number of risk reduction strategies have been suggested but only radiographer abnormality detection schemes (RADS) have been widely implemented in the UK. This study considers the variation in RADS operation and communication in light of technological advances and changes in service operation.MethodsA postal survey of all NHS hospitals operating either an Emergency Department or Minor Injury Unit and a diagnostic imaging (radiology) department (n = 510) was undertaken between July and August 2011. The questionnaire was designed to elicit information on emergency service provision and details of RADS.Results325 questionnaires were returned (n = 325/510; 63.7%). The majority of sites (n = 288/325; 88.6%) operated a RADS with the majority (n = 227/288; 78.8%) employing a visual ‘flagging’ system as the only method of communication although symbols used were inconsistent and contradictory across sites. 61 sites communicated radiographer findings through a written proforma (paper or electronic) but this was run in conjunction with a flagging system at 50 sites. The majority of sites did not have guidance on the scope or operation of the ‘flagging’ or written communication system in use.ConclusionsRADS is an established clinical intervention to reduce errors in diagnostic image interpretation within the emergency setting. The lack of standardisation in communication processes and practices alongside the rapid adoption of technology has increased the potential for error and miscommunication.     

Proctoring of New Emergency Radiologists to Promote Clinical Excellence and Ensure Quality of Care

PurposeThe authors’ institution provides 24/7 attending radiologist final interpretations for all emergency, urgent, and inpatient studies. As a supplement to the existing emergency radiology faculty, the institution relies on two groups of radiologists to provide final imaging interpretations after hours: radiology fellows (RFs) and newly hired subspecialty radiologists (NRs). For both groups, subspecialty services provide overreads the following day to improve the skills of the staff members and ensure clinical excellence. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical significance and rate of discrepancies between RFs and NRs.MethodsA retrospective review of all overreads from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2015, was performed. Discrepancy rates for RFs and NRs were calculated. Error significance for cases requiring addenda was categorized as follows: acute, likely malignant, indeterminate, unlikely to be of clinical significance, insignificant typographic error, or significant typographic error.ResultsIn total, 10,796 studies were rechecked, of which 1.9% (n = 205) required addenda, 3.6% (n = 384) were deemed addendum-optional, and 94.5% (n = 10,207) required no comments. There was no significant difference in cases requiring addenda (RFs, 1.7% [119 of 6,847]; NRs, 2.2% [86 of 3,949]; P = .11). Of the 205 cases requiring addenda, 21.0% (n = 43) were deemed to be acute, 4.9% (n = 10) likely malignant, 28.3% (n = 58) indeterminate, 32.7% (n = 67) unlikely to be of clinical significance, and 13.1% (n = 27) secondary to typographic errors (66.7% [n = 18] deemed to be significant).ConclusionsAfter-hours coverage with RFs and NRs allows high-quality final, actionable interpretations with low discrepancy rates and no significant difference between both groups for addendum-needed cases. The program strikes a balance between the need for timely interpretations and the need to continually monitor and improve the quality of interpretations through subspecialist feedback.     

Impact of Emergency Medicine Point-of-Care Ultrasound on Radiology Ultrasound Volumes in a Single Pediatric Emergency Department

PurposePoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is growing, but few data exist regarding its effects on radiology ultrasound (Rad US) volumes. The authors studied changes in Rad US ordered by emergency medicine (EM) as POCUS began and grew at their pediatric hospital.MethodsThis retrospective study included EM POCUS and EM-ordered Rad US volumes between 2011 and 2017, during three 2-year intervals: before POCUS, early POCUS, and expanded POCUS. Changes in overall Rad US and POCUS volumes per visit during these intervals were studied. Changes in skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) US per SSTI visit, an examination performed diagnostically by both radiology and EM, were also assessed. Volume differences were examined using the Mann-Whitney U test (significance threshold, P < .05), and process control charts were used to identify nonrandom variations.ResultsThe study included 49,908 Rad US and 2,772 POCUS examinations during 647,890 emergency department visits. Rad US volumes per visit remained unchanged during early POCUS (P = .858) but increased with expanded POCUS (P < .005). A transient nonrandom increase in Rad US occurred as POCUS began. SSTI Rad US per SSTI visit significantly increased (P < .001) during early POCUS but did not change with expanded POCUS (P = .143). An SSTI management pathway in the emergency department before expanded POCUS may have affected ordering. Other variation occurred in proximity to practice changes and seasonal patterns.ConclusionsRad US overall and specifically for SSTI increased or remained stable during the introduction and growth of EM POCUS. Rather than decreasing Rad US, EM POCUS had a complementary role.     

Comparing Artificial Intelligence Approaches to Retrieve Clinical Reports Documenting Implantable Devices Posing MRI Safety Risks

ObjectiveAssess sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of two approaches to identify patients with implantable devices that pose safety risks for MRI—an expert-derived approach and an ontology-derived natural language processing (NLP). Determine the proportion of clinical data that identify these implantable devices.MethodsThis Institutional Review Board–approved retrospective study was performed at a 793-bed academic hospital. The expert-derived approach used an open-source software with a list of curated terms to query for implantable devices posing high safety risk (“MRI-Red”) in patients undergoing MRI. The ontology-derived approach used an NLP system with terms mapped to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms. Queries were performed in three clinical data types—25,000 radiology reports, 174,769 emergency department (ED) notes, and 41,085 other clinical reports (eg, cardiology, operating room, physician notes, radiology reports, pathology reports, patient letters). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of both methods against manual review of a randomly sampled 465 reports were assessed and tested for significant differences between expert-derived and ontology-derived approaches using t test.ResultsAccuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of expert-versus ontology-derived approaches were similar (0.83 versus 0.91, P = .080; 0.88 versus 0.96, P = .178; 0.82 versus 0.92, P = .110). The proportion of radiology reports, ED notes, and other clinical reports retrieved containing implantable devices with high safety risks for MRI ranged from 1.47% to 1.88%.DiscussionArtificial intelligence approaches such as expert-driven NLP and ontology-driven NLP have similar accuracy in identifying patients with implantable devices that pose high safety risks for MRI.     

Balance performance analysis after the COVID-19 quarantine in children aged between 8 and 12 years old: Longitudinal study

BackgroundCorona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused great changes in daily activities, especially in children. In Spain, to avoid infections, a home quarantine was declared, which caused a drastic reduction in daily or weekly physical activity in children.Objectiveto analyse the balance performance after the COVID-19-induced quarantine on children’s balance, through the use of balance tests, considering the type of sport practiced.Methodsan observational and longitudinal study was carried out with a sample size of 150 healthy children (69 boys and 81 girls) with a mean age of 10.02 ± 1.15 years. Postural control was evaluated under different equilibrium conditions before and after the quarantine period. Two data collections using the Gyko system were compared, with a difference of 8 months between them. In addition, the influence of foot type and physical activity was analysed.ResultsAfter the quarantine, statistically significant differences were found in terms of balance results, which were worse than before (p < 0.05). Postural control was not influenced by the type of sport practiced (i.e., individual, collective and / or not practicing sport), nor by the surface which the test was performed (p > 0.05). Physically active children (i.e., individual and / or collective sport) presented worse results than physically inactive children. A statistically significant impairment in terms of balance was demonstrated in children who performed high and moderate physical activity (p < 0.05).ConclusionsAfter the quarantine period, a significant reduction in balance performance was found in children. The findings suggest that regular physical activity benefits postural control. Loss of balance does not differ in postural stability by the type of sport practised. Postural stability is not influenced by the type of footprint after the period of physical inactivity. Postural control is influenced in children with a great level of physical activity.     

Concordance Assessment of Pathology Results with Imaging Findings after Image-Guided Biopsy

PurposeTo assess the impact of radiology review for discordance between pathology results from computed tomography (CT)–guided biopsies versus imaging findings performed before a biopsy.Materials and MethodsIn this retrospective review, which is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and approved by the institutional review board, 926 consecutive CT-guided biopsies performed between January 2015 and December 2017 were included. In total, 453 patients were presented in radiology review meetings (prospective group), and the results were classified as concordant or discordant. Results from the remaining 473 patients not presented at the radiology review meetings were retrospectively classified. Times to reintervention and to definitive diagnosis were obtained for discordant cases; of these, 49 (11%) of the 453 patients were in the prospective group and 55 (12%) of the 473 patients in the retrospective group.ResultsPathology results from CT-guided biopsies were discordant with imaging in 11% (104/926) of the cases, with 57% (59/104) of these cases proving to be malignant. In discordant cases, reintervention with biopsy and surgery yielded a shorter time to definitive diagnosis (28 and 14 days, respectively) than an imaging follow-up (78 days) (P < .001). The median time to diagnosis was 41 days in the prospective group and 56 days in the retrospective group (P = .46). When radiologists evaluated the concordance between pathology and imaging findings and recommended a repeat biopsy for the discordant cases, more biopsies were performed (50% [11/22] vs 13% [4/31]; P = .005).ConclusionsEleven percent of CT-guided biopsies yielded pathology results that were discordant with imaging findings, with 57% of these proving to be malignant on further workup.     

Single center experience of inferior vena cava filter retrieval in trauma patients: contrast-enhanced CT-based retrieval within hospital stay

PurposeTo assess the safety and retrieval rate of a predischarge inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval strategy based on contrast computed tomography (CT).MethodsIVC filter insertion for trauma patients from 2010 to 2018 were reviewed. An active filter retrieval strategy was established in March 2017. The strategy sought early evaluation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) status and filter retrieval before a patient's discharge. The possibility of early IVC filter retrieval was evaluated by a multidisciplinary team based on pre-filter retrieval VTE-CT findings. Overall VTE-CT findings, retrieval rate, indwelling time, and recurrence of venous thromboembolic events were compared before and after the filter retrieval strategy setup.Results177 IVC filters were inserted in trauma patients. All patients underwent pre-filter retrieval VTE-CT. VTE-CT findings were as follows: completely resolved VTE, n = 108 (61%); partially improved, n = 58 (33%); no change, n = 8 (5%); aggravated, n = 3 (2%). The overall retrieval rate was 84% with a mean indwelling time of 32 days. In subgroup analyses, 95 (53%) had filter retrieval with the before strategy (BS) setup and 82 (47%) with the after strategy (AS) setup. The retrieval rate was significantly higher in the AS group [81/82 (99%) vs. 68/95 (72%), (p < 0.001)]. No patients had recurrent VTE during the follow-up period.ConclusionsThe active strategy of VTE-CT-based filter retrieval during the hospital stay markedly improved the filter retrieval rate from 72% to 99% without evidence of recurrence of VTE. Hazards of low retrieval rate versus CT-related radiation exposure should be studied in the future.     

Outcomes of Postprocedural Closeout Checklist Implementation to Prevent Adverse Events during Interventional Radiology Procedures: An Initiative to Improve Outcomes

PurposeTo assess whether adherence to a postprocedural closeout (PPC) checklist decreases adverse events during image-guided procedures.Materials and MethodsBased on the analysis of prior adverse events related to image-guided procedures, the Radiology Quality Committee developed a PPC checklist. The rates of serious reportable events related to image-guided procedures performed in the radiology department were recorded annually from 2015 to 2021. The rate of adverse events was normalized to the procedure volume in the corresponding periods. The number of patients requiring repeat procedures was recorded. The severity of impact was classified according to the Society of Interventional Radiology Adverse Event Classification System. The annual rates before (2015 and 2016) and after (2017–2021) the implementation of PPC were compared.ResultsSeventy-seven safety reports were identified in image-guided procedures over the study period, of which 43 cases were not related to the PPC, leaving 34 cases for the analysis. Radiology adverse events decreased from 0.069% (14/20,218, 7/y) before PPC implementation to 0.034% (20/58,793, 4/y) after implementation (P = .05, 43% decrease). Radiology repeat procedures decreased from 0.040% (8/20,218, 4/y) before PPC implementation to 0.007% (4/58,793, 0.8/y) after implementation (P = .0033, 80% decrease). Moreover, severity of adverse events decreased (P = .009).ConclusionsImplementation of a PPC checklist improved patient outcomes by decreasing the number of adverse events that occur from inadequate safety processes at the end of image-guided procedures by 43%, need for repeat procedures by 80%, and severity of impact of errors.     

Influences of Radiology Trainees on Screening Mammography Interpretation

PurposeParticipation of radiology trainees in screening mammographic interpretation is a critical component of radiology residency and fellowship training. The aim of this study was to investigate and quantify the effects of trainee involvement on screening mammographic interpretation and diagnostic outcomes.MethodsScreening mammograms interpreted at an academic medical center by six dedicated breast imagers over a three-year period were identified, with cases interpreted by an attending radiologist alone or in conjunction with a trainee. Trainees included radiology residents, breast imaging fellows, and fellows from other radiology subspecialties during breast imaging rotations. Trainee participation, patient variables, results of diagnostic evaluations, and pathology were recorded.ResultsA total of 47,914 mammograms from 34,867 patients were included, with an overall recall rate for attending radiologists reading alone of 14.7% compared with 18.0% when involving a trainee (P < .0001). Overall cancer detection rate for attending radiologists reading alone was 5.7 per 1,000 compared with 5.2 per 1,000 when reading with a trainee (P = .517). When reading with a trainee, dense breasts represented a greater portion of recalls (P = .0001), and more frequently, greater than one abnormality was described in the breast (P = .013). Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ versus invasive carcinoma or invasive cancer type was not significantly different. The mean size of cancers in patients recalled by attending radiologists alone was smaller, and nodal involvement was less frequent, though not statistically significantly.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate a significant overall increase in recall rate when interpreting screening mammograms with radiology trainees, with no change in cancer detection rate. Radiology faculty members should be aware of this potentiality and mitigate tendencies toward greater false positives.     

Blind spots on CT imaging of the head: Insights from 5 years of report addenda at a single institution

BackgroundErrors of detection (“misses”) are the major source of error in radiology. There is sparse prior literature describing patterns of detection error on CT head imaging.PurposeThe objective of this study was to gain insight to areas on CT head imaging where radiologists are most likely to miss clinically relevant findings.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of consecutive reports of CT imaging of the head at a single institution spanning 5/1/2013–5/1/2018 (5 years). Detection errors described in addenda were categorized according to anatomic location, type of pathology, and potential impact on management. Blind spots were defined by the most common sites of missed findings.ResultsA total of 165,943 reports for CT head imaging were obtained. Addenda were found in 1658 (~1%) of reports, of which 359 (21.7%) described errors of detection. Within the extracranial soft tissues (n = 73) the most common “misses” were at incidentally imaged parotid glands and the frontal scalp. Within osseous structures (n = 149), blind spots included the nasal and occipital bones. Vascular lesions (n = 47) which passed detection were most common at the distal MCA, carotid terminus and sigmoid sinus/jugular bulb. No predisposition was seen for anatomic subsites within the CSF space (n = 60) and brain parenchyma (n = 65).ConclusionsConsistent patterns of blind spots are revealed. Radiologic teaching and search patterns to account for these sites of error may accelerate trainee competence and improve accuracy in the practice of radiology.     

Citation Impact of Collaboration in Radiology Research

PurposeTeam science involving multidisciplinary and multi-institutional collaboration is increasingly recognized as a means of strengthening the quality of scientific research. The aim of this study was to assess associations between various forms of collaboration and the citation impact of published radiology research.MethodsIn 2010, 876 original research articles published in Academic Radiology, the American Journal of Roentgenology, JACR, and Radiology were identified with at least one radiology-affiliated author. All articles were manually reviewed to extract features related to all authors’ disciplines and institutions. Citations to these articles through September 2016 were extracted from Thomson Reuters Web of Science.ResultsSubsequent journal article citation counts were significantly higher (P < .05) for original research articles with at least seven versus six or fewer authors (26.2 ± 30.8 versus 20.3 ± 23.1, respectively), with authors from multiple countries versus from a single country (32.3 ± 39.2 versus 22.0 ± 25.0, respectively), with rather than without a nonuniversity collaborator (28.7 ± 38.6 versus 22.4 ± 24.9, respectively), and with rather than without a nonclinical collaborator (26.5 ± 33.1 versus 21.9 ± 24.4, respectively). On multivariate regression analysis, the strongest independent predictors of the number of citations were authors from multiple countries (β = 9.14, P = .002), a nonuniversity collaborator (β = 4.80, P = .082), and at least seven authors (β = 4.11, P = .038).ConclusionsWith respect to subsequent journal article citations, various forms of collaboration are associated with greater scholarly impact of published radiology research. To enhance the relevance of their research, radiology investigators are encouraged to pursue collaboration across traditional disciplinary, institutional, and geographic boundaries.