Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tessler, F.
Right arrow Articles by Peters, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tessler, F.
Right arrow Articles by Peters, T.

Radiology, Vol 199, 551-553, Copyright © 1996 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Value of selective second-look sonography by radiologists

FN Tessler, ME Tublin, JC Peters, T Jie and TL Peters
Department of Radiology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY 12208, USA.

PURPOSE: To assess the usefulness of sonography performed by radiologists after a review of the sonographer's findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 398 sonograms were obtained in 392 patients. Sonographers presented preliminary images and impressions to radiologists, who performed additional imaging and recorded their conclusions. Radiologists also attempted to predict in which cases their scan was likely to show new findings or to refute the sonographer's findings. Follow-up data were obtained whenever the sonographer's and the radiologist's findings disagreed. RESULTS: In 28 cases, the radiologist made important new findings. Positive initial findings were refuted in 24 cases. Discrepant findings were seen in 22% of cases in which additional scanning was predicted to be beneficial, compared with only 6% of cases in which second-look sonography was predicted not to be of value. This difference was statistically significant (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Second-look sonography by radiologists provides a valuable check of the sonographer's findings.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. Laifer-Narin, N. Ragavendra, E. K. Parmenter, and E. G. Grant
False-Normal Appearance of the Endometrium on Conventional Transvaginal Sonography: Comparison with Saline Hysterosonography
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2002; 178(1): 129 - 133.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. P. Rosen, T. S. Mehta, R. Bromberg, S. L. Kelly, and D. Levine
Remote Sonographic Interpretation Using a Laser Printer Network: System Performance and Diagnostic Accuracy in Actual Clinical Practice
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2001; 176(4): 855 - 860.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. S. Rose, D. Mandavia, V. Tayal, M. Blaivas, B. S. Hertzberg, and M. A. Kliewer
Physician Sonography Training Competency
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 813 - 814.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1996 by the Radiological Society of North America.