Are clinically unimportant findings qualified as benign in lumbar spine imaging reports? A content analysis of plain X-ray, CT and MRI reports
Lumbar spine diagnostic imaging reports may cause patient and clinician concern when clinically unimportant findings are not explicitly described as benign. Our primary aim was to determine the frequency that common, benign findings are reported in lumbar spine plain X-ray, computed tomography (CT)...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2024-03, Vol.19 (3), p.e0297911-e0297911 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0297911 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | e0297911 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Farmer, Caitlin Haas, Romi Wallis, Jason O'Connor, Denise Buchbinder, Rachelle |
description | Lumbar spine diagnostic imaging reports may cause patient and clinician concern when clinically unimportant findings are not explicitly described as benign. Our primary aim was to determine the frequency that common, benign findings are reported in lumbar spine plain X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports as either normal for age or likely clinically unimportant.
We obtained 600 random de-identified adult lumbar spine imaging reports (200 X-ray, 200 CT and 200 MRI) from a large radiology provider. Only reports requested for low back pain were included. From the report text, one author extracted each finding (e.g., 'broad-based posterior disc bulge') and whether it was present or absent (e.g., no disc bulge) until data saturation was reached, pre-defined as a minimum of 50 reports and no new/similar findings in the last ten reports within each imaging modality. Two authors independently judged whether each finding was likely clinically unimportant or important. For each likely clinicially unimportant finding they also determined if it had been explicitly reported to be benign (expressed as normal, normal for age, benign, clinically unimportant or non-significant).
Data saturation was reached after coding 262 reports (80 X-ray, 82 CT, 100 MRI). Across all reports we extracted 3,598 findings. Nearly all reports included at least one clinically unimportant finding (76/80 (95%) X-ray, 80/82 (98%) CT, 99/100 (99%) MRI). Over half of the findings (n = 2,062, 57%; 272 X-Ray, 667 CT, 1123 MRI) were judged likely clinically unimportant. Most likely clinically unimportant findings (90%, n = 1,854) were reported to be present on imaging (rather than absent) and of those only 18% (n = 331) (89 (35%) X-ray, 93 (16%) CT and 149 (15%) MRI) were explicitly reported as benign.
Lumbar spine imaging reports frequently include findings unlikely to be clinically important without explicitly qualifying that they are benign. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0297911 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10936854</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2957164470</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-4a9aad1142e4b8aee6c4cf998ffdc3c00cce350885629a50641562abc2144c0f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkc1q3DAUhUVJaX7aNyhByyzqqWTJtrQKw9CkgZRCSaE7cS1LEwVZciS7MC_RZ46GTEK60oV7ztG5fAh9pmRFWUe_PsQlBfCrKQazIrXsJKXv0AmVrK7amrCjN_MxOs35gZCGibb9gI6Z4J3gsjlB_9bJYO1dcBq83-EluHGKaYYwY-vC4MI248cFvLPODBgy7k1w24BdwH4Ze0g4Ty4Y7EbYFjFOZm_Pl3iNdQyzKTlQau6yyzhaPHkozj9Vgt0XvLkruwH_-HXzYvuI3lvw2Xw6vGfo99W3u8336vbn9c1mfVtp1oi54iABBkp5bXgvwJhWc22lFNYOmmlCtDasIUI0bS2hIS2nZYJe15RzTSw7Q5fPudPSj2bQpWYCr6ZUzkg7FcGp_zfB3att_KsokawVDS8JF4eEFB8Xk2c1uqyN9xBMXLKqZdPRlvOOFCl_luoUc07Gvv5DidqzVAeWas9SHVgW2_nbjq-mF3jsCSp0odo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2957164470</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are clinically unimportant findings qualified as benign in lumbar spine imaging reports? A content analysis of plain X-ray, CT and MRI reports</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Farmer, Caitlin ; Haas, Romi ; Wallis, Jason ; O'Connor, Denise ; Buchbinder, Rachelle</creator><contributor>Mubuuke, Aloysius Gonzaga</contributor><creatorcontrib>Farmer, Caitlin ; Haas, Romi ; Wallis, Jason ; O'Connor, Denise ; Buchbinder, Rachelle ; Mubuuke, Aloysius Gonzaga</creatorcontrib><description>Lumbar spine diagnostic imaging reports may cause patient and clinician concern when clinically unimportant findings are not explicitly described as benign. Our primary aim was to determine the frequency that common, benign findings are reported in lumbar spine plain X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports as either normal for age or likely clinically unimportant.
We obtained 600 random de-identified adult lumbar spine imaging reports (200 X-ray, 200 CT and 200 MRI) from a large radiology provider. Only reports requested for low back pain were included. From the report text, one author extracted each finding (e.g., 'broad-based posterior disc bulge') and whether it was present or absent (e.g., no disc bulge) until data saturation was reached, pre-defined as a minimum of 50 reports and no new/similar findings in the last ten reports within each imaging modality. Two authors independently judged whether each finding was likely clinically unimportant or important. For each likely clinicially unimportant finding they also determined if it had been explicitly reported to be benign (expressed as normal, normal for age, benign, clinically unimportant or non-significant).
Data saturation was reached after coding 262 reports (80 X-ray, 82 CT, 100 MRI). Across all reports we extracted 3,598 findings. Nearly all reports included at least one clinically unimportant finding (76/80 (95%) X-ray, 80/82 (98%) CT, 99/100 (99%) MRI). Over half of the findings (n = 2,062, 57%; 272 X-Ray, 667 CT, 1123 MRI) were judged likely clinically unimportant. Most likely clinically unimportant findings (90%, n = 1,854) were reported to be present on imaging (rather than absent) and of those only 18% (n = 331) (89 (35%) X-ray, 93 (16%) CT and 149 (15%) MRI) were explicitly reported as benign.
Lumbar spine imaging reports frequently include findings unlikely to be clinically important without explicitly qualifying that they are benign.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297911</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38478495</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; People and Places ; Research and Analysis Methods</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2024-03, Vol.19 (3), p.e0297911-e0297911</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2024 Farmer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>2024 Farmer et al 2024 Farmer et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-4a9aad1142e4b8aee6c4cf998ffdc3c00cce350885629a50641562abc2144c0f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6836-122X ; 0000-0001-6886-7784</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936854/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936854/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2928,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38478495$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Mubuuke, Aloysius Gonzaga</contributor><creatorcontrib>Farmer, Caitlin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haas, Romi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallis, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Connor, Denise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchbinder, Rachelle</creatorcontrib><title>Are clinically unimportant findings qualified as benign in lumbar spine imaging reports? A content analysis of plain X-ray, CT and MRI reports</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Lumbar spine diagnostic imaging reports may cause patient and clinician concern when clinically unimportant findings are not explicitly described as benign. Our primary aim was to determine the frequency that common, benign findings are reported in lumbar spine plain X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports as either normal for age or likely clinically unimportant.
We obtained 600 random de-identified adult lumbar spine imaging reports (200 X-ray, 200 CT and 200 MRI) from a large radiology provider. Only reports requested for low back pain were included. From the report text, one author extracted each finding (e.g., 'broad-based posterior disc bulge') and whether it was present or absent (e.g., no disc bulge) until data saturation was reached, pre-defined as a minimum of 50 reports and no new/similar findings in the last ten reports within each imaging modality. Two authors independently judged whether each finding was likely clinically unimportant or important. For each likely clinicially unimportant finding they also determined if it had been explicitly reported to be benign (expressed as normal, normal for age, benign, clinically unimportant or non-significant).
Data saturation was reached after coding 262 reports (80 X-ray, 82 CT, 100 MRI). Across all reports we extracted 3,598 findings. Nearly all reports included at least one clinically unimportant finding (76/80 (95%) X-ray, 80/82 (98%) CT, 99/100 (99%) MRI). Over half of the findings (n = 2,062, 57%; 272 X-Ray, 667 CT, 1123 MRI) were judged likely clinically unimportant. Most likely clinically unimportant findings (90%, n = 1,854) were reported to be present on imaging (rather than absent) and of those only 18% (n = 331) (89 (35%) X-ray, 93 (16%) CT and 149 (15%) MRI) were explicitly reported as benign.
Lumbar spine imaging reports frequently include findings unlikely to be clinically important without explicitly qualifying that they are benign.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkc1q3DAUhUVJaX7aNyhByyzqqWTJtrQKw9CkgZRCSaE7cS1LEwVZciS7MC_RZ46GTEK60oV7ztG5fAh9pmRFWUe_PsQlBfCrKQazIrXsJKXv0AmVrK7amrCjN_MxOs35gZCGibb9gI6Z4J3gsjlB_9bJYO1dcBq83-EluHGKaYYwY-vC4MI248cFvLPODBgy7k1w24BdwH4Ze0g4Ty4Y7EbYFjFOZm_Pl3iNdQyzKTlQau6yyzhaPHkozj9Vgt0XvLkruwH_-HXzYvuI3lvw2Xw6vGfo99W3u8336vbn9c1mfVtp1oi54iABBkp5bXgvwJhWc22lFNYOmmlCtDasIUI0bS2hIS2nZYJe15RzTSw7Q5fPudPSj2bQpWYCr6ZUzkg7FcGp_zfB3att_KsokawVDS8JF4eEFB8Xk2c1uqyN9xBMXLKqZdPRlvOOFCl_luoUc07Gvv5DidqzVAeWas9SHVgW2_nbjq-mF3jsCSp0odo</recordid><startdate>20240313</startdate><enddate>20240313</enddate><creator>Farmer, Caitlin</creator><creator>Haas, Romi</creator><creator>Wallis, Jason</creator><creator>O'Connor, Denise</creator><creator>Buchbinder, Rachelle</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6836-122X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6886-7784</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240313</creationdate><title>Are clinically unimportant findings qualified as benign in lumbar spine imaging reports? A content analysis of plain X-ray, CT and MRI reports</title><author>Farmer, Caitlin ; Haas, Romi ; Wallis, Jason ; O'Connor, Denise ; Buchbinder, Rachelle</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-4a9aad1142e4b8aee6c4cf998ffdc3c00cce350885629a50641562abc2144c0f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Farmer, Caitlin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haas, Romi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallis, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Connor, Denise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchbinder, Rachelle</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Farmer, Caitlin</au><au>Haas, Romi</au><au>Wallis, Jason</au><au>O'Connor, Denise</au><au>Buchbinder, Rachelle</au><au>Mubuuke, Aloysius Gonzaga</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are clinically unimportant findings qualified as benign in lumbar spine imaging reports? A content analysis of plain X-ray, CT and MRI reports</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2024-03-13</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e0297911</spage><epage>e0297911</epage><pages>e0297911-e0297911</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Lumbar spine diagnostic imaging reports may cause patient and clinician concern when clinically unimportant findings are not explicitly described as benign. Our primary aim was to determine the frequency that common, benign findings are reported in lumbar spine plain X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports as either normal for age or likely clinically unimportant.
We obtained 600 random de-identified adult lumbar spine imaging reports (200 X-ray, 200 CT and 200 MRI) from a large radiology provider. Only reports requested for low back pain were included. From the report text, one author extracted each finding (e.g., 'broad-based posterior disc bulge') and whether it was present or absent (e.g., no disc bulge) until data saturation was reached, pre-defined as a minimum of 50 reports and no new/similar findings in the last ten reports within each imaging modality. Two authors independently judged whether each finding was likely clinically unimportant or important. For each likely clinicially unimportant finding they also determined if it had been explicitly reported to be benign (expressed as normal, normal for age, benign, clinically unimportant or non-significant).
Data saturation was reached after coding 262 reports (80 X-ray, 82 CT, 100 MRI). Across all reports we extracted 3,598 findings. Nearly all reports included at least one clinically unimportant finding (76/80 (95%) X-ray, 80/82 (98%) CT, 99/100 (99%) MRI). Over half of the findings (n = 2,062, 57%; 272 X-Ray, 667 CT, 1123 MRI) were judged likely clinically unimportant. Most likely clinically unimportant findings (90%, n = 1,854) were reported to be present on imaging (rather than absent) and of those only 18% (n = 331) (89 (35%) X-ray, 93 (16%) CT and 149 (15%) MRI) were explicitly reported as benign.
Lumbar spine imaging reports frequently include findings unlikely to be clinically important without explicitly qualifying that they are benign.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>38478495</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0297911</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6836-122X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6886-7784</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2024-03, Vol.19 (3), p.e0297911-e0297911 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10936854 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Biology and Life Sciences Medicine and Health Sciences People and Places Research and Analysis Methods |
title | Are clinically unimportant findings qualified as benign in lumbar spine imaging reports? A content analysis of plain X-ray, CT and MRI reports |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T16%3A18%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20clinically%20unimportant%20findings%20qualified%20as%20benign%20in%20lumbar%20spine%20imaging%20reports?%20A%20content%20analysis%20of%20plain%20X-ray,%20CT%20and%20MRI%20reports&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Farmer,%20Caitlin&rft.date=2024-03-13&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0297911&rft.epage=e0297911&rft.pages=e0297911-e0297911&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0297911&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2957164470%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2957164470&rft_id=info:pmid/38478495&rfr_iscdi=true |