Cargando…

Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example

BACKGROUND: Radiograph teaching files are usually dominated by abnormal cases, implying that normal radiographs are easier to interpret. Our main objective was to compare the interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs of a set of common pediatric radiographs. METHODS: We develop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boutis, Kathy, Cano, Stefan, Pecaric, Martin, Welch-Horan, T. Bram, Lampl, Brooke, Ruzal-Shapiro, Carrie, Pusic, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: University of Calgary, Health Sciences Centre 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4830375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103955
_version_ 1782426892873236480
author Boutis, Kathy
Cano, Stefan
Pecaric, Martin
Welch-Horan, T. Bram
Lampl, Brooke
Ruzal-Shapiro, Carrie
Pusic, Martin
author_facet Boutis, Kathy
Cano, Stefan
Pecaric, Martin
Welch-Horan, T. Bram
Lampl, Brooke
Ruzal-Shapiro, Carrie
Pusic, Martin
author_sort Boutis, Kathy
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Radiograph teaching files are usually dominated by abnormal cases, implying that normal radiographs are easier to interpret. Our main objective was to compare the interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs of a set of common pediatric radiographs. METHODS: We developed a 234-item digital case bank of pediatric ankle radiographs, recruited a convenience sample of participants, and presented the cases to each participant who then classified the cases as normal or abnormal. We determined and contrasted the interpretation difficulty of the normal and abnormal x-rays items using Rasch Measurement Theory. We also identified case features that were associated with item difficulty. RESULTS: 139 participants (86 medical students, 7 residents, 29 fellows, 5 emergency physicians, and 3 radiologists) rated a minimum of 50 cases each, which resulted in 16,535 total ratings. Abnormal cases were more difficult (+0.99 logits) than were normal ones (−0.58 logits), difference 1.57 logits (95% CI 1.2, 2.0), but there was considerable overlap in difficulty scores. Patient variables associated with a more difficult normal radiograph included younger patient age (β = −0.16, 95% CI −0.22, −0.10), history of distal fibular tenderness (β = 0.55, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93), and presence of a secondary ossification centre (β = 0.84, 95% CI 0.27, 1.41). CONCLUSIONS: While abnormal images were more difficult to interpret, normal images did show a range of interpretation difficulties. Including a significant proportion of normal cases may be of benefit to learners.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4830375
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher University of Calgary, Health Sciences Centre
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48303752016-04-21 Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example Boutis, Kathy Cano, Stefan Pecaric, Martin Welch-Horan, T. Bram Lampl, Brooke Ruzal-Shapiro, Carrie Pusic, Martin Can Med Educ J Major Contribution/Research Article BACKGROUND: Radiograph teaching files are usually dominated by abnormal cases, implying that normal radiographs are easier to interpret. Our main objective was to compare the interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs of a set of common pediatric radiographs. METHODS: We developed a 234-item digital case bank of pediatric ankle radiographs, recruited a convenience sample of participants, and presented the cases to each participant who then classified the cases as normal or abnormal. We determined and contrasted the interpretation difficulty of the normal and abnormal x-rays items using Rasch Measurement Theory. We also identified case features that were associated with item difficulty. RESULTS: 139 participants (86 medical students, 7 residents, 29 fellows, 5 emergency physicians, and 3 radiologists) rated a minimum of 50 cases each, which resulted in 16,535 total ratings. Abnormal cases were more difficult (+0.99 logits) than were normal ones (−0.58 logits), difference 1.57 logits (95% CI 1.2, 2.0), but there was considerable overlap in difficulty scores. Patient variables associated with a more difficult normal radiograph included younger patient age (β = −0.16, 95% CI −0.22, −0.10), history of distal fibular tenderness (β = 0.55, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93), and presence of a secondary ossification centre (β = 0.84, 95% CI 0.27, 1.41). CONCLUSIONS: While abnormal images were more difficult to interpret, normal images did show a range of interpretation difficulties. Including a significant proportion of normal cases may be of benefit to learners. University of Calgary, Health Sciences Centre 2016-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4830375/ /pubmed/27103955 Text en © 2016 Boutis, Cano, Pecaric, Welch-Horan, Lampl, Ruzal-Shapiro, Pusic; licensee Synergies Partners This is an Open Journal Systems article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Major Contribution/Research Article
Boutis, Kathy
Cano, Stefan
Pecaric, Martin
Welch-Horan, T. Bram
Lampl, Brooke
Ruzal-Shapiro, Carrie
Pusic, Martin
Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example
title Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example
title_full Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example
title_fullStr Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example
title_full_unstemmed Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example
title_short Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example
title_sort interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example
topic Major Contribution/Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4830375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103955
work_keys_str_mv AT boutiskathy interpretationdifficultyofnormalversusabnormalradiographsusingapediatricexample
AT canostefan interpretationdifficultyofnormalversusabnormalradiographsusingapediatricexample
AT pecaricmartin interpretationdifficultyofnormalversusabnormalradiographsusingapediatricexample
AT welchhorantbram interpretationdifficultyofnormalversusabnormalradiographsusingapediatricexample
AT lamplbrooke interpretationdifficultyofnormalversusabnormalradiographsusingapediatricexample
AT ruzalshapirocarrie interpretationdifficultyofnormalversusabnormalradiographsusingapediatricexample
AT pusicmartin interpretationdifficultyofnormalversusabnormalradiographsusingapediatricexample