• Acad Emerg Med · Feb 2006

    Comparative Study

    The effect of Picture Archiving and Communications Systems on the accuracy of diagnostic interpretation of pediatric emergency physicians.

    • Serge Gouin, Hema Patel, Sylvie Bergeron, Devendra Amre, and Ronald Guérin.
    • Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Ste-Justine Hospital, Montreal University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. sergegouin@aol.com
    • Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Feb 1;13(2):186-90.

    ObjectivesTo compare the accuracy of diagnostic interpretation of radiographs by pediatric emergency physicians (EPs) before and after the introduction of a Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS).MethodsThe pre-PACS study period included results from September 2001, when patients were evaluated by using only conventional radiographs. The post-PACS study period consisted of results from September 2002, when patients were evaluated by using only digital radiographic studies. During these periods, consecutive medical records of all patients who underwent radiological studies when attending the pediatric emergency department (ED) were reviewed. The radiographic interpretation by the pediatric EP, documented at the time of the ED visit, was compared with that made by the pediatric radiologist.ResultsData were available from 1,644/1,651 sets of conventional radiographs ordered for the pre-PACS study period and from 1,430/1,431 sets of digital radiographic studies for the post-PACS study period. The prevalence of positive radiological studies as per the radiologists was 32.2% (pre-PACS study period) vs. 28.7% (post-PACS study period). Diagnostic performance of the pediatric EPs for the two time periods was as follows: overall accuracy, 98.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 94.5% to 100%) vs. 98.5% (95% CI = 87.5% to 100%); sensitivity, 96.4% (95% CI = 94.5% to 97.8%) vs. 98.1% (95% CI = 96.2% to 99.2%); specificity, 98.9% (95% CI = 98.1% to 99.4%) vs. 98.6% (95% CI = 97.7% to 99.3%); negative predictive value, 98.3% (95% CI = 97.4% to 99.0%) vs. 99.2% (95% CI = 98.5% to 99.7%); and positive predictive value, 97.7% (95% CI = 96.0% to 98.8%) vs. 96.6% (95% CI = 94.4% to 98.2%). The proportion of false negatives (FN) was 1.2% (19/1,644) vs. 0.6% (8/1,430). Only one FN patient for each time period required immediate follow-up for a missed diagnosis.ConclusionsRadiograph interpretations by pediatric EPs with digital studies remain as accurate in comparison with assessments performed by using conventional radiographs.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.