Search

Purpose of Review To provide the radiologist with tools to recognize findings atypical for Graves’ ophthalmopathy and differentiate between the most important and common alternative causes of extraocular muscle enlargement on CT and MR imaging. Recent findings We introduce five ‘red flags’ representing features that are atypical for Graves’ ophthalmopathy: unilateral disease, atypical pattern of muscle involvement, adjacent structure involvement, restricted diffusion, and absence of pain. Summary About 95% of the cases with extraocular enlargement are due to Graves’ ophthalmopathy, other causes are less well known and recognized. The ‘red flags’ may aid in recognizing and suggesting alternative diagnoses.

Background: Misinterpretation of medical images is an important source of diagnostic error. Errors can occur in different phases of the diagnostic process. Insight in the error types made by learners is crucial for training and giving effective feedback. Most diagnostic skill tests however penalize diagnostic mistakes without an eye for the diagnostic process and the type of error. A radiology test with stepwise reasoning questions was used to distinguish error types in the visual diagnostic process. We evaluated the additional value of a stepwise question-format, in comparison with only diagnostic questions in radiology tests. Methods: Medical students in a radiology elective (n=109) took a radiology test including 11–13 cases in stepwise question-format: marking an abnormality, describing the abnormality and giving a diagnosis. Errors were coded by two independent researchers as perception, analysis, diagnosis, or undefined. Erroneous cases were further evaluated for the presence of latent errors or partial knowledge. Inter-rater reliabilities and percentages of cases with latent errors and partial knowledge were calculated. Results: The stepwise question-format procedure applied to 1351 cases completed by 109 medical students revealed 828 errors. Mean inter-rater reliability of error type coding was Cohen’s κ=0.79. Six hundred and fifty errors (79%) could be coded as perception, analysis or diagnosis errors. The stepwise question-format revealed latent errors in 9% and partial knowledge in 18% of cases. Conclusions: A stepwise question-format can reliably distinguish error types in the visual diagnostic process, and reveals latent errors and partial knowledge.

© 2017 The Association of University Radiologists Rationale and Objectives Radiology expertise is dependent on the use of efficient search strategies. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of teaching search strategies on trainee's accuracy in detecting lung nodules at computed tomography. Materials and Methods Two search strategies, “scanning” and “drilling,” were tested with a randomized crossover design. Nineteen junior radiology residents were randomized into two groups. Both groups first completed a baseline lung nodule detection test allowing a free search strategy, followed by a test after scanning instruction and drilling instruction or vice versa. True positive (TP) and false positive (FP) scores and scroll behavior were registered. A mixed-design analysis of variance was applied to compare the three search conditions. Results Search strategy instruction had a significant effect on scroll behavior, F(1.3) = 54.2, P < 0.001; TP score, F(2) = 16.1, P < 0.001; and FP score, F(1.3) = 15.3, P < 0.001. Scanning instruction resulted in significantly lower TP scores than drilling instruction (M = 10.7, SD = 5.0 versus M = 16.3, SD = 5.3), t(18) = 4.78, P < 0.001; or free search (M = 15.3, SD = 4.6), t(18) = 4.44, P < 0.001. TP scores for drilling did not significantly differ from free search. FP scores for drilling (M = 7.3, SD = 5.6) were significantly lower than for free search (M = 12.5, SD = 7.8), t(18) = 4.86, P < 0.001. Conclusions Teaching a drilling strategy is preferable to teaching a scanning strategy for finding lung nodules.

This chapter aims to give radiologists guidelines for the evaluation of patients with oral cavity neoplasms. We propose a structured approach for assessing and reporting imaging studies, and provide background information, tips, and tricks that facilitate the approach. In addition, we elaborate on possible diagnoses alternative to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that may be suggested based on imaging findings. The final part is dedicated to anatomical landmarks that are useful for the evaluation of imaging studies. The chapter tries to facilitate clinical work based on relevant and up-to-date background information and current state-of-the-art medicine for both specialized and non-specialized radiologists reporting head and neck studies. We emphasize that we did not try to be comprehensive with respect to anatomy, pathology, and other background information. General epidemiological data on head and neck cancer, including oral cavity, are discussed in the introduction chapter of this book.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging of the brachial plexus shows nerve thickening in approximately half of the patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) and multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). The reliability of qualitative evaluation of brachial plexus MRI has not been studied previously. METHODS: We performed an interrater study in a retrospective cohort of 19 patients with CIDP, 17 patients with MMN, and 14 controls. The objective was to assess interrater variability between radiologists by using a predefined scoring system that allowed the distinction of no, possible, or definite nerve thickening. RESULTS: Raters agreed in 26 of 50 (52%) brachial plexus images; κ-coefficient was 0.30 (SE 0.08, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.46, P

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning in diagnostic imaging professions is a complex skill that requires processing of visual information and image manipulation skills. We developed a digital simulation-based test method to increase authenticity of image interpretation skill assessment. METHODS: A digital application, allowing volumetric image viewing and manipulation, was used for three test administrations of the national Dutch Radiology Progress Test for residents. This study describes the development and implementation process in three phases. To assess authenticity of the digital tests, perceived image quality and correspondence to clinical practice were evaluated and compared with previous paper-based tests (PTs). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation results were used to improve subsequent tests. RESULTS: Authenticity of the first digital test was not rated higher than the PTs. Test characteristics and environmental conditions, such as image manipulation options and ambient lighting, were optimized based on participants' comments. After adjustments in the third digital test, participants favored the image quality and clinical correspondence of the digital image questions over paper-based image questions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital simulations can increase authenticity of diagnostic radiology assessments compared with paper-based testing. However, authenticity does not necessarily increase with higher fidelity. It can be challenging to simulate the image interpretation task of clinical practice in a large-scale assessment setting, because of technological limitations. Optimizing image manipulation options, the level of ambient light, time limits, and question types can help improve authenticity of simulation-based radiology assessments.

Scholars have identified two distinct ways of thinking. This "Dual Process Theory" distinguishes a fast, nonanalytical way of thinking, called "System 1," and a slow, analytical way of thinking, referred to as "System 2." In radiology, we use both methods when interpreting and reporting images, and both should ideally be emphasized when educating our trainees. This review provides practical tips for improving radiology education, by enhancing System 1 and System 2 thinking among our trainees.