221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20522396)
1. Optimizing radiology peer review: a mathematical model for selecting future cases based on prior errors.
Sheu YR; Feder E; Balsim I; Levin VF; Bleicher AG; Branstetter BF
J Am Coll Radiol; 2010 Jun; 7(6):431-8. PubMed ID: 20522396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates.
Borgstede JP; Lewis RS; Bhargavan M; Sunshine JH
J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Jan; 1(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 17411521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Managing errors in radiology: a working model.
Melvin C; Bodley R; Booth A; Meagher T; Record C; Savage P
Clin Radiol; 2004 Sep; 59(9):841-5. PubMed ID: 15351251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Focused peer review: the end game of peer review.
Hussain S; Hussain JS; Karam A; Vijayaraghavan G
J Am Coll Radiol; 2012 Jun; 9(6):430-3.e1. PubMed ID: 22632671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Preliminary reports in the emergency department: is a subspecialist radiologist more accurate than a radiology resident?
Branstetter BF; Morgan MB; Nesbit CE; Phillips JA; Lionetti DM; Chang PJ; Towers JD
Acad Radiol; 2007 Feb; 14(2):201-6. PubMed ID: 17236993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Integration of Peer Review in PACS Results in a Marked Increase in the Discrepancies Reported.
Yacoub JH; Obara P; Bova D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Mar; 214(3):613-617. PubMed ID: 31846375
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center.
Carney E; Kempf J; DeCarvalho V; Yudd A; Nosher J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Aug; 181(2):367-73. PubMed ID: 12876012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quality--a radiology imperative: interpretation accuracy and pertinence.
Lee JK
J Am Coll Radiol; 2007 Mar; 4(3):162-5. PubMed ID: 17412256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Radiology resident interpretations of on-call imaging studies: the incidence of major discrepancies.
Cooper VF; Goodhartz LA; Nemcek AA; Ryu RK
Acad Radiol; 2008 Sep; 15(9):1198-204. PubMed ID: 18692761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The degree of abdominal imaging (AI) subspecialization of the reviewing radiologist significantly impacts the number of clinically relevant and incidental discrepancies identified during peer review of emergency after-hours body CT studies.
Bell ME; Patel MD
Abdom Imaging; 2014 Oct; 39(5):1114-8. PubMed ID: 24740761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community hospital.
Ruchman RB; Jaeger J; Wiggins EF; Seinfeld S; Thakral V; Bolla S; Wallach S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Sep; 189(3):523-6. PubMed ID: 17715095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Application of the RADPEER™ scoring language to interpretation discrepancies between diagnostic radiology residents and faculty radiologists.
Maloney E; Lomasney LM; Schomer L
J Am Coll Radiol; 2012 Apr; 9(4):264-9. PubMed ID: 22469377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Survey of faculty perceptions regarding a peer review system.
Eisenberg RL; Cunningham ML; Siewert B; Kruskal JB
J Am Coll Radiol; 2014 Apr; 11(4):397-401. PubMed ID: 24144835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A report card system using error profile analysis and concurrent morbidity and mortality review: surgical outcome analysis, part II.
Antonacci AC; Lam S; Lavarias V; Homel P; Eavey RA
J Surg Res; 2009 May; 153(1):95-104. PubMed ID: 18511079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Part I: preparing first-year radiology residents and assessing their readiness for on-call responsibilities.
Ganguli S; Pedrosa I; Yam CS; Appignani B; Siewert B; Kressel HY
Acad Radiol; 2006 Jun; 13(6):764-9. PubMed ID: 16679280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Surgical adverse events, risk management, and malpractice outcome: morbidity and mortality review is not enough.
Morris JA; Carrillo Y; Jenkins JM; Smith PW; Bledsoe S; Pichert J; White A
Ann Surg; 2003 Jun; 237(6):844-51; discussion 851-2. PubMed ID: 12796581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review in diagnostic radiology: current state and a vision for the future.
Mahgerefteh S; Kruskal JB; Yam CS; Blachar A; Sosna J
Radiographics; 2009; 29(5):1221-31. PubMed ID: 19564252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Overnight resident interpretation of torso CT at a level 1 trauma center an analysis and review of the literature.
Chung JH; Strigel RM; Chew AR; Albrecht E; Gunn ML
Acad Radiol; 2009 Sep; 16(9):1155-60. PubMed ID: 19481962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Identifying benchmarks for discrepancy rates in preliminary interpretations provided by radiology trainees at an academic institution.
Ruutiainen AT; Scanlon MH; Itri JN
J Am Coll Radiol; 2011 Sep; 8(9):644-8. PubMed ID: 21889753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cross-sectional examination interpretation discrepancies between on-call diagnostic radiology residents and subspecialty faculty radiologists: analysis by imaging modality and subspecialty.
Ruma J; Klein KA; Chong S; Wesolowski J; Kazerooni EA; Ellis JH; Myles JD
J Am Coll Radiol; 2011 Jun; 8(6):409-14. PubMed ID: 21636055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
