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