| Title |
Second opinions in orthopedic oncology imaging: can fellowship training reduce clinically significant discrepancies?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Skeletal Radiology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00256-018-3024-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aleksandr Rozenberg, Barry E. Kenneally, John A. Abraham, Kristin Strogus, Johannes B. Roedl, William B. Morrison, Adam C. Zoga |
| Abstract |
To determine factors that lead to significant discrepancies in second-opinion consultation of orthopedic oncology patients, and particularly if musculoskeletal fellowship training can decrease clinically significant discrepancies. A PACS database was queried for secondary reads on outside cross-sectional imaging studies, as requested by orthopedic oncology from 2014 to 2017. Comparison of original and secondary reports was performed using a published seven-point scale that defines clinically significant discrepancies. An online search was performed for each original radiologist to record if a fellowship in musculoskeletal imaging was completed. Additionally, years of post-residency experience, number of Medicare part B patients billed per year (marker of practice volume), and average hierarchical condition category for each radiologist (marker of practice complexity) was recorded. A total of 571 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 184 cases initially interpreted by an outside fellowship trained musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologist and 387 cases initially interpreted by a non-MSK trained radiologist. The rate of clinically significant discrepancy was 9.2% when initially interpreted by MSK radiologists compared with 27.9% when initially performed by non-MSK radiologists (p < 0.05). After adjustment by both patient characteristics and radiologist characteristics, the likelihood of clinically significant discrepancies was greater for initial interpretations by non-MSK radiologists compared with MSK radiologists (OR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.23-2.49). In orthopedic oncology patients, the rate of clinically significant discrepancies was significantly higher when initially interpreted by non-MSK radiologists compared with MSK radiologists. The lower rate of clinically significant discrepancies demonstrates that subspecialty training may direct more appropriate diagnosis and treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 42% |
| Spain | 3 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 38% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 03 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,383,075
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#173
of 1,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,488
of 331,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#9
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 331,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.