Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Swensson, R. G.
Right arrow Articles by Herman, P. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Swensson, R. G.
Right arrow Articles by Herman, P. G.

Radiology, Vol 123, 563-567, Copyright © 1977 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Omissions in radiology: faulty search or stringent reporting criteria?

RG Swensson, SJ Hessel and PG Herman

Selected difficult chest radiographs were interpreted by 10 radiologists and then reread in a Focused Search condition that directed readers' attention to film regions containing frequently omitted findings. The percentage of true abnormalities reported at any level of confidence increased from 49.3 to 68.3 between the usual and Focused Search conditions. However, the corresponding percentage of significant false positives also increased from 4.6 to 10.6. The separate ROC curves from each condition could be superimposed and the data fit by a single ROC curve. Thus, the reduced omissions in Focused Search were the result of less stringent criteria for reporting the presence of abnormal findings, rather than an enhanced ability to detect abnormalities. There was no evidence that the original omissions were abnormalities simply overlooked in faulty initial searches.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Board Fam MedHome page
P. D. Smith, J. Temte, J. W. Beasley, and M. Mundt
Radiographs in the Office: Is a Second Reading Always Needed?
J Am Board Fam Med, July 1, 2004; 17(4): 256 - 263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
S. J. Walsh
Goodness-of-fit Issues in ROC Curve Estimation
Med Decis Making, April 1, 1999; 19(2): 193 - 201.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
L. G.B.A. Quekel, A. G.H. Kessels, R. Goei, and J. M.A. van Engelshoven
Miss Rate of Lung Cancer on the Chest Radiograph in Clinical Practice
Chest, March 1, 1999; 115(3): 720 - 724.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1977 by the Radiological Society of North America.