Cargando…

Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study

OBJECTIVES: In utero magnetic resonance (iuMR) imaging to diagnose foetal brain abnormalities has been established and is supported by meta-analyses of retrospective and prospective studies. In this paper we describe and classify the iuMR errors made in the largest diagnostic accuracy study to date...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batty, Ruth, Gawne-Cain, Mary L., Mooney, Cara, Mandefield, Laura, Bradburn, Michael, Mason, Gerald, Griffiths, Paul D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6291426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29948083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5508-x
_version_ 1783380242558091264
author Batty, Ruth
Gawne-Cain, Mary L.
Mooney, Cara
Mandefield, Laura
Bradburn, Michael
Mason, Gerald
Griffiths, Paul D.
author_facet Batty, Ruth
Gawne-Cain, Mary L.
Mooney, Cara
Mandefield, Laura
Bradburn, Michael
Mason, Gerald
Griffiths, Paul D.
author_sort Batty, Ruth
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: In utero magnetic resonance (iuMR) imaging to diagnose foetal brain abnormalities has been established and is supported by meta-analyses of retrospective and prospective studies. In this paper we describe and classify the iuMR errors made in the largest diagnostic accuracy study to date (MERIDIAN). We also correlate the error rates and types with the prior experience of the reporting radiologists in order to inform how to provide a national programme with the best diagnostic accuracy achievable. METHODS: The MERIDIAN cohort of 570 foetus formed the basis of this study and included 40 cases with a confirmed diagnostic error, compared with the Outcome Reference Diagnosis. Analysis included the potential clinical effect of the error and classification of error type through an Expert Neuroradiological Panel re-reporting the study. Assessments were made regarding radiologists experience prior to MERIDIAN. RESULTS: The overall confirmed error rate for iuMR was 7·0% and it was considered that there would have been an adverse effect on prognostic information in 22/40 cases if the iuMR had informed counselling. The experienced central reporter made statistically significant fewer errors than the less experienced non-central reporters (3·8% v 11·0%) and the central reporter made fewer clinically significant errors. Furthermore, the type of cognitive errors differed between central and non-central reporters. CONCLUSIONS: Although iuMR imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of detecting foetal brain abnormalities there remains a substantial error rate, which can have major clinical significance. We have shown that error rates are lower for more experienced reporting radiologists with fewer potential deleterious clinical implications. We discuss the implications of these findings in terms of providing a uniform national service. KEY POINTS: • Overall confirmed error rate for iuMR diagnosing foetal brain abnormalities was 7·0%. • IuMR reports had an adverse effect on counselling in 55% of error cases. • Error rates are consistently lower for more experienced radiologists. • Collaboration between radiologists, dual reporting, overseeing scan and formal training can reduce errors. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-018-5508-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6291426
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62914262018-12-27 Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study Batty, Ruth Gawne-Cain, Mary L. Mooney, Cara Mandefield, Laura Bradburn, Michael Mason, Gerald Griffiths, Paul D. Eur Radiol Magnetic Resonance OBJECTIVES: In utero magnetic resonance (iuMR) imaging to diagnose foetal brain abnormalities has been established and is supported by meta-analyses of retrospective and prospective studies. In this paper we describe and classify the iuMR errors made in the largest diagnostic accuracy study to date (MERIDIAN). We also correlate the error rates and types with the prior experience of the reporting radiologists in order to inform how to provide a national programme with the best diagnostic accuracy achievable. METHODS: The MERIDIAN cohort of 570 foetus formed the basis of this study and included 40 cases with a confirmed diagnostic error, compared with the Outcome Reference Diagnosis. Analysis included the potential clinical effect of the error and classification of error type through an Expert Neuroradiological Panel re-reporting the study. Assessments were made regarding radiologists experience prior to MERIDIAN. RESULTS: The overall confirmed error rate for iuMR was 7·0% and it was considered that there would have been an adverse effect on prognostic information in 22/40 cases if the iuMR had informed counselling. The experienced central reporter made statistically significant fewer errors than the less experienced non-central reporters (3·8% v 11·0%) and the central reporter made fewer clinically significant errors. Furthermore, the type of cognitive errors differed between central and non-central reporters. CONCLUSIONS: Although iuMR imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of detecting foetal brain abnormalities there remains a substantial error rate, which can have major clinical significance. We have shown that error rates are lower for more experienced reporting radiologists with fewer potential deleterious clinical implications. We discuss the implications of these findings in terms of providing a uniform national service. KEY POINTS: • Overall confirmed error rate for iuMR diagnosing foetal brain abnormalities was 7·0%. • IuMR reports had an adverse effect on counselling in 55% of error cases. • Error rates are consistently lower for more experienced radiologists. • Collaboration between radiologists, dual reporting, overseeing scan and formal training can reduce errors. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-018-5508-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-06-15 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6291426/ /pubmed/29948083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5508-x Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Magnetic Resonance
Batty, Ruth
Gawne-Cain, Mary L.
Mooney, Cara
Mandefield, Laura
Bradburn, Michael
Mason, Gerald
Griffiths, Paul D.
Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study
title Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study
title_full Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study
title_fullStr Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study
title_short Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study
title_sort analysis of errors made on in utero mr studies of the foetal brain in the meridian study
topic Magnetic Resonance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6291426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29948083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5508-x
work_keys_str_mv AT battyruth analysisoferrorsmadeoninuteromrstudiesofthefoetalbraininthemeridianstudy
AT gawnecainmaryl analysisoferrorsmadeoninuteromrstudiesofthefoetalbraininthemeridianstudy
AT mooneycara analysisoferrorsmadeoninuteromrstudiesofthefoetalbraininthemeridianstudy
AT mandefieldlaura analysisoferrorsmadeoninuteromrstudiesofthefoetalbraininthemeridianstudy
AT bradburnmichael analysisoferrorsmadeoninuteromrstudiesofthefoetalbraininthemeridianstudy
AT masongerald analysisoferrorsmadeoninuteromrstudiesofthefoetalbraininthemeridianstudy
AT griffithspauld analysisoferrorsmadeoninuteromrstudiesofthefoetalbraininthemeridianstudy