↓ Skip to main content

Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 1,245)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
17 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
316 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
459 Mendeley
Title
Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable?
Published in
Insights into Imaging, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian P. Brady

Abstract

Errors and discrepancies in radiology practice are uncomfortably common, with an estimated day-to-day rate of 3-5% of studies reported, and much higher rates reported in many targeted studies. Nonetheless, the meaning of the terms "error" and "discrepancy" and the relationship to medical negligence are frequently misunderstood. This review outlines the incidence of such events, the ways they can be categorized to aid understanding, and potential contributing factors, both human- and system-based. Possible strategies to minimise error are considered, along with the means of dealing with perceived underperformance when it is identified. The inevitability of imperfection is explained, while the importance of striving to minimise such imperfection is emphasised. • Discrepancies between radiology reports and subsequent patient outcomes are not inevitably errors. • Radiologist reporting performance cannot be perfect, and some errors are inevitable. • Error or discrepancy in radiology reporting does not equate negligence. • Radiologist errors occur for many reasons, both human- and system-derived. • Strategies exist to minimise error causes and to learn from errors made.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 459 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 457 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 11%
Student > Bachelor 50 11%
Other 47 10%
Student > Postgraduate 35 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 8%
Other 98 21%
Unknown 142 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 11%
Computer Science 31 7%
Engineering 23 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 1%
Other 45 10%
Unknown 175 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2023.
All research outputs
#538,799
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#12
of 1,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,016
of 420,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,325 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.