黑与白:临床医生仅凭儿科肘部X光片诊断肘部损伤的能力有多强?

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1136/emermed-2024-214047
Lisa Dann, Sarah Edwards, Dani Hall, Tessa Davis, Damian Roland, Michael Barrett
{"title":"黑与白:临床医生仅凭儿科肘部X光片诊断肘部损伤的能力有多强?","authors":"Lisa Dann, Sarah Edwards, Dani Hall, Tessa Davis, Damian Roland, Michael Barrett","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2024-214047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Paediatric trauma elbow radiographs are difficult to interpret and there is a potential for harm if misdiagnosed. The primary goal of this study was to assess the ability of healthcare professionals internationally to interpret paediatric trauma elbow radiographs from the radiograph alone by formulating the correct diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective international study was conducted online via the Free Open Access Medical Education platform, Don't Forget the Bubbles (DFTB, ISSN 2754-5407). Participants were recruited via the DFTB social media accounts between 17 August and 14 September 2021. Submissions that were incomplete or from participants who do not interpret paediatric elbow radiographs in their clinical practice were excluded. Participants completed an online survey of demographic data followed by interpreting 10 trauma-indicated elbow radiographs, by selecting multiple-choice options. The primary outcome was correct diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participant responses from 18 countries were analysed, with most responses from the UK, Australia and Ireland. Participants had backgrounds in emergency medicine (EM), paediatric emergency medicine (PEM), general practice (GP) and paediatrics, with over 70% having 6+ years of postgraduate experience. 3180 radiographs were interpreted by 318 healthcare professionals. Only nine (2.8%) participants correctly diagnosed all 10. The mean number of radiographs correctly interpreted was 5.44 (SD 2.3). The mean number for those with 6+ years of experience was 6.02 (SD 2.2). On reviewing the normal radiograph, 158 (49.7%) overcalled injuries. Participants with EM or PEM background were equally likely to have more correct answers than those from paediatric or GP backgrounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Globally, healthcare professional's success in correctly diagnosing paediatric elbow injuries from radiographs was suboptimal in this non-clinical exercise, despite capturing quite an experienced cohort of clinicians. This study has provided us with detailed baseline data to accurately assess the impact of interventions aimed at improving clinicians' interpretation of paediatric elbow radiographs in future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"662-667"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Black and white: how good are clinicians at diagnosing elbow injuries from paediatric elbow radiographs alone?\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Dann, Sarah Edwards, Dani Hall, Tessa Davis, Damian Roland, Michael Barrett\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2024-214047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Paediatric trauma elbow radiographs are difficult to interpret and there is a potential for harm if misdiagnosed. The primary goal of this study was to assess the ability of healthcare professionals internationally to interpret paediatric trauma elbow radiographs from the radiograph alone by formulating the correct diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective international study was conducted online via the Free Open Access Medical Education platform, Don't Forget the Bubbles (DFTB, ISSN 2754-5407). Participants were recruited via the DFTB social media accounts between 17 August and 14 September 2021. Submissions that were incomplete or from participants who do not interpret paediatric elbow radiographs in their clinical practice were excluded. Participants completed an online survey of demographic data followed by interpreting 10 trauma-indicated elbow radiographs, by selecting multiple-choice options. The primary outcome was correct diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participant responses from 18 countries were analysed, with most responses from the UK, Australia and Ireland. Participants had backgrounds in emergency medicine (EM), paediatric emergency medicine (PEM), general practice (GP) and paediatrics, with over 70% having 6+ years of postgraduate experience. 3180 radiographs were interpreted by 318 healthcare professionals. Only nine (2.8%) participants correctly diagnosed all 10. The mean number of radiographs correctly interpreted was 5.44 (SD 2.3). The mean number for those with 6+ years of experience was 6.02 (SD 2.2). On reviewing the normal radiograph, 158 (49.7%) overcalled injuries. Participants with EM or PEM background were equally likely to have more correct answers than those from paediatric or GP backgrounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Globally, healthcare professional's success in correctly diagnosing paediatric elbow injuries from radiographs was suboptimal in this non-clinical exercise, despite capturing quite an experienced cohort of clinicians. This study has provided us with detailed baseline data to accurately assess the impact of interventions aimed at improving clinicians' interpretation of paediatric elbow radiographs in future studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"662-667\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214047\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:儿科创伤肘部X光片很难解读,如果误诊有可能造成伤害。本研究的主要目的是评估国际上医护人员仅凭X光片就能做出正确诊断,从而解读儿科创伤肘部X光片的能力:这项前瞻性国际研究通过免费开放医学教育平台 "别忘了泡泡"(DFTB,ISSN 2754-5407)在线进行。参与者是在 2021 年 8 月 17 日至 9 月 14 日期间通过 DFTB 社交媒体账户招募的。不完整的提交或在临床实践中不解释儿科肘部X光片的参与者的提交将被排除在外。参与者在完成人口统计学数据的在线调查后,通过选择多个选项来解释 10 张创伤提示的肘部 X 光片。主要结果是诊断是否正确:结果:分析了来自 18 个国家的参与者的回复,其中大部分来自英国、澳大利亚和爱尔兰。参与者的专业背景包括急诊医学(EM)、儿科急诊医学(PEM)、全科医学(GP)和儿科,超过 70% 的参与者拥有 6 年以上的研究生经历。318 名医护人员对 3180 张放射照片进行了解读。只有 9 名参与者(2.8%)正确诊断出所有 10 种疾病。正确解读的 X 光片平均数量为 5.44 张(标准差为 2.3)。拥有 6 年以上工作经验者的平均正确率为 6.02(标准差为 2.2)。在复查正常 X 光片时,有 158 人(49.7%)高估了受伤部位。与儿科或全科医生背景的参与者相比,拥有内科或妇产科背景的参与者同样有可能获得更多正确答案:从全球范围来看,在这项非临床实践中,医疗保健专业人员从X光片上正确诊断儿科肘部损伤的成功率并不理想,尽管他们都是经验丰富的临床医生。这项研究为我们提供了详细的基线数据,以便在今后的研究中准确评估旨在改善临床医生对儿科肘部X光片判读的干预措施的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Black and white: how good are clinicians at diagnosing elbow injuries from paediatric elbow radiographs alone?

Objectives: Paediatric trauma elbow radiographs are difficult to interpret and there is a potential for harm if misdiagnosed. The primary goal of this study was to assess the ability of healthcare professionals internationally to interpret paediatric trauma elbow radiographs from the radiograph alone by formulating the correct diagnosis.

Methods: This prospective international study was conducted online via the Free Open Access Medical Education platform, Don't Forget the Bubbles (DFTB, ISSN 2754-5407). Participants were recruited via the DFTB social media accounts between 17 August and 14 September 2021. Submissions that were incomplete or from participants who do not interpret paediatric elbow radiographs in their clinical practice were excluded. Participants completed an online survey of demographic data followed by interpreting 10 trauma-indicated elbow radiographs, by selecting multiple-choice options. The primary outcome was correct diagnosis.

Results: Participant responses from 18 countries were analysed, with most responses from the UK, Australia and Ireland. Participants had backgrounds in emergency medicine (EM), paediatric emergency medicine (PEM), general practice (GP) and paediatrics, with over 70% having 6+ years of postgraduate experience. 3180 radiographs were interpreted by 318 healthcare professionals. Only nine (2.8%) participants correctly diagnosed all 10. The mean number of radiographs correctly interpreted was 5.44 (SD 2.3). The mean number for those with 6+ years of experience was 6.02 (SD 2.2). On reviewing the normal radiograph, 158 (49.7%) overcalled injuries. Participants with EM or PEM background were equally likely to have more correct answers than those from paediatric or GP backgrounds.

Conclusion: Globally, healthcare professional's success in correctly diagnosing paediatric elbow injuries from radiographs was suboptimal in this non-clinical exercise, despite capturing quite an experienced cohort of clinicians. This study has provided us with detailed baseline data to accurately assess the impact of interventions aimed at improving clinicians' interpretation of paediatric elbow radiographs in future studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
期刊最新文献
Best evidence topic report: can intradermal sterile water injections provide effective pain relief in patients with renal colic? Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Is it time to reframe resuscitation in trauma? Are there differences in low-acuity emergency department visits between culturally and linguistically diverse migrants and people with English-speaking background: a population-based linkage study of adults over 45.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1