The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference.
Abstract
The authors review and classify errors in 182 cases that were presented at problem case conferences between August 1986 and October 1990. Errors were classified by means of a system developed 20 years ago and by means of a system developed within the past several years. The authors found that sources of error have changed very little. Errors usually involved failure to consult old radiologic studies or reports, limitations in imaging technique, acquisition of inaccurate or incomplete clinical history, location of a lesion outside the area of interest on an image, lack of knowledge, failure to continue to search for abnormalities after the first abnormality was found, and failure to recognize a normal biologic variant. Errors included 126 perceptual errors (64 false-negative, 15 false-positive, and 47 misclassification errors) and 56 mishaps, including 38 complications and 18 communication errors. In seven cases nonperception errors occurred because established departmental routines were not followed, and in nine cases a new departmental routine was established after a complication occurred. Departmental policy exerts less effect on perception and interpretation errors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bruno, M. A., Walker, E. A., & Abujudeh, H. H. (2015) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.2015150023 · Cited by 573
Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image.
Robinson, P. J. (1997) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.70.839.9536897 · Cited by 320
Best practices in modified barium swallow studies
Martin-Harris, B., Canon, C. L., Bonilha, H. S., Murray, J., Davidson, K., & Lefton-Greif, M. A. (2020) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2020_ajslp-19-00189 · Cited by 129
Improving the radiologist-CAD interaction: designing for appropriate trust
Jorritsma, W., Cnossen, F., & van Ooijen, P. M. A. (2015) · Clinical Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.crad.2014.09.017 · Cited by 61
Pitfalls in Chest Radiographic Interpretation: Blind Spots
de Groot, P. M., Carter, B. W., Abbott, G. F., & Wu, C. C. (2015) · Seminars in Roentgenology · doi:10.1053/j.ro.2015.01.008 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Renfrew, D. L., Franken, E. A., Berbaum, K. S., Weigelt, F. H., & Abu-Yousef, M. M.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 1992-04
- Volume
- 183
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 145-150
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2023167539
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549661
- The paper
- Renfrew, D. L., Franken, E. A., Berbaum, K. S., Weigelt, F. H., & Abu-Yousef, M. M. (1992). Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549661
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.