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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |