Cited by 8Intracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsRadiology practices and educationMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues

Diagnosis of Cerebral Aneurysm Via Magnetic Resonance Angiography Screening: Emphasis on Legal Responsibility Increases False Positive Rate

Open access
Cho, Su-hee, Lee, Ji-ye, Ryu, Kyeong-hwa, Suh, Dae Chul·2018·Neurointervention

Abstract

PURPOSE: False positive diagnoses of cerebral aneurysm via magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) screening may increase unnecessary cerebral catheter angiography. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of medical liability on medical decision-making during radiologic interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 56 consecutive patients who were referred with suspected aneurysm based on MRA or computed tomography angiography (CTA) and showed no aneurysm on subsequent digital subtraction angiography (DSA). MRA and CTA were reviewed twice by two neuroradiology fellows who were blind as to whether the suspected lesions were true aneurysms or not. The second review was repeated after proposing that their decision was subject to legal liability and they would be responsible for medico-legal problems related to their diagnoses. Diagnostic differences based on each review were analyzed, focusing on changes in false positive diagnosis rates. RESULTS: A total of 63 suspected aneurysmal lesions detected via MRA or CTA were found to be negative based on DSA. At first review, 32 lesions were diagnosed as true aneurysms by observer 1 and 27 by observer 2, corresponding to false positive rates of 51% and 43% respectively. At the second review, 39 lesions (62%) were diagnosed by observer 1, and 30 (48%) by observer 2. Thus, there was an overall increase in false positive aneurysm diagnosis of 11% for observer 1 and 5% for observer 2, after emphasizing their responsibilities in the context of medical litigation. CONCLUSION: Concerns about medical liability could result in increased false positive diagnoses of cerebral aneurysms via MRA screening. Whether repeated follow-up of the suspected lesion or catheter angiographic confirmation is better with regard to long-term patient outcomes requires further study.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5469/neuroint.2018.13.1.48

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Due to the fear of medical liability, some radiologists may select defensive behaviors that conclude the ambiguous image finding is abnormal.

    “For example, due to the fear of medical liability, some radiologists may select defensive behaviors that conclude the ambiguous image finding is abnormal [265].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [1]Pinto A Brunese L Pinto F Reali R Daniele S Romano L The concept of error and malpractice in radiology Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2012 33 275 279 22824117
  2. [2]Brady AP Error and discrepancy in radiology: Inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging 2017 8 171 182 27928712 PMC5265198
  3. [3]Fileni A Magnavita N Mirk P Iavicoli I Magnavita G Bergamaschi A Radiologic malpractice litigation risk in italy: An observational study over a 14-year period AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010 194 1040 1046 20308508
  4. [4]Villablanca JP Jahan R Hooshi P Lim S Duckwiler G Patel A Detection and characterization of very small cerebral aneurysms by using 2d and 3d helical ct angiography AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002 23 1187 1198 12169479 PMC8185733
  5. [5]Fischer S Hopf N Henkes H Evolution from an infundibulum of the posterior communicating artery to a saccular aneurysm Clin Neuroradiol 2011 21 87 90 21140127
  6. [6]Satoh T Omi M Ohsako C Fujiwara K Tsuno K Sasahara W Differential diagnosis of the infundibular dilation and aneurysm of internal carotid artery: Assessment with fusion imaging of 3d mr cisternography/angiography AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006 27 306 312 16484398 PMC8148769
  7. [7]Germino JC Elmore JG Carlos RC Lee CI Imaging-based screening: Maximizing benefits and minimizing harms Clinical imaging 2016 40 339 343 26112898 PMC4676956
  8. [8]Lee CS Nagy PG Weaver SJ Newman-Toker DE Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013 201 611 617 23971454
  9. [10]Magnavita N Fileni A Mirk P Magnavita G Ricci S Cotroneo AR Malpractice claims in interventional radiology: Frequency, characteristics and protective measures Radiol Med 2013 118 504 517 22986698
  10. [11]Mavroforou A Giannoukas A Mavrophoros D Michalodimitrakis E Physicians' liability in interventional radiology and endovascular therapy Eur J Radiol 2003 46 240 243 12758118
  11. [12]Studdert DM Mello MM Sage WM DesRoches CM Peugh J Zapert K Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment JAMA 2005 293 2609 2617 15928282
  12. [13]Keedy A An overview of intracranial aneurysms Mcgill J Med 2006 9 141 146 PMC2323531 18523626
  13. [14]Adams WM Laitt RD Jackson A The role of mr angiography in the pretreatment assessment of intracranial aneurysms: A comparative study AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000 21 1618 1628 11039340 PMC8174871
  14. [15]Hoh BL Cheung AC Rabinov JD Pryor JC Carter BS Ogilvy CS Results of a prospective protocol of computed tomographic angiography in place of catheter angiography as the only diagnostic and pretreatment planning study for cerebral aneurysms by a combined neurovascular team Neurosurgery 2004 54 1329 1340 discussion 1340-1322 15157289
  15. [16]Mallouhi A Felber S Chemelli A Dessl A Auer A Schocke M Detection and characterization of intracranial aneurysms with mr angiography: Comparison of volume-rendering and maximum-intensity-projection algorithms AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003 180 55 64 12490476
  16. [17]Sailer AM Wagemans BA Nelemans PJ de Graaf R van Zwam WH Diagnosing intracranial aneurysms with mr angiography: Systematic review and meta-analysis Stroke 2014 45 119 126 24326447
  17. [18]Okuyama T Saito K Hirano A Takahashi A Hashimoto Y Inagaki T Diagnosis of unruptured cerebral aneurysms using magnetic resonance angiography and three dimensional computed tomographic angiography No Shinkei Geka 1997 25 1073 1079 9430141
  18. [19]Hiratsuka Y Miki H Kiriyama I Kikuchi K Takahashi S Matsubara I Diagnosis of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: 3t mr angiography versus 64-channel multi-detector row ct angiography Magn Reson Med Sci 2008 7 169 178 19110511
  19. [20]Wardlaw JM White PM The detection and management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms Brain 2000 123 Pt 2 205 221 10648430
  20. [21]Kaufmann TJ Huston J 3rd Mandrekar JN Schleck CD Thielen KR Kallmes DF Complications of diagnostic cerebral angiography: Evaluation of 19,826 consecutive patients Radiology 2007 243 812 819 17517935
  21. [22]McKinney AM Palmer CS Truwit CL Karagulle A Teksam M Detection of aneurysms by 64-section multidetector ct angiography in patients acutely suspected of having an intracranial aneurysm and comparison with digital subtraction and 3d rotational angiography AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008 29 594 602 18065510 PMC8118862
  22. [23]van Gelder JM Computed tomographic angiography for detecting cerebral aneurysms: Implications of aneurysm size distribution for the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios Neurosurgery 2003 53 597 605 discussion 605-596 12943576
  23. [24]Jeong HW Seo JH Kim ST Jung CK Suh SI Clinical practice guideline for the management of intracranial aneurysms Neurointervention 2014 9 63 71 25426300 PMC4239410

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cho, S.-H., Lee, J.-Y., Ryu, K.-H., & Suh, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Soonchunhyang University Hospital Bucheon (KR)
  • Gyeongsang National University (KR)
  • Asan Medical Center (KR)
Corresponding author
Suh, Dae Chul
Venue
Neurointervention
Published
2018-03-31
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
48-53
ISSN
  • 1975-5643 (ISSN-L)
  • 2093-9043
  • 2233-6273
OpenAlex
W2792012567
Cited by
8
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurointervention (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Intracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Keywords
intracranial aneurysm, magnetic resonance angiography, false-positive diagnosis, medical liability, legal responsibility, radiographic interpretation, CT angiography, digital subtraction angiography, observer bias

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