Degree of Uncertainty in Reporting Imaging Findings for Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Secondary Analysis from a Pilot Randomized Diagnostic Trial

Diagnosis of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) relies heavily on imaging, but uncertainty in the language used in imaging reports can result in ambiguity, miscommunication, and potential diagnostic errors. To determine the degree of uncertainty in reporting imaging findings for NEC, we conducted a secondary analysis of the data from a previously completed pilot diagnostic randomized controlled trial (2019-2020). The study population comprised sixteen preterm infants with suspected NEC randomized to abdominal radiographs (AXRs) or AXR + bowel ultrasound (BUS). The level of uncertainty was determined using a four-point Likert scale. Overall, we reviewed radiology reports of 113 AXR and 24 BUS from sixteen preterm infants with NEC concern. The BUS reports showed less uncertainty for reporting pneumatosis, portal venous gas, and free air compared to AXR reports (pneumatosis: 1 [1-1.75) vs. 3 [2-3], p < 0.0001; portal venous gas: 1 [1-1] vs. 1 [1-1], p = 0.02; free air: 1 [1-1] vs. 2 [1-3], p < 0.0001). In conclusion, we found that BUS reports have a lower degree of uncertainty in reporting imaging findings of NEC compared to AXR reports. Whether the lower degree of uncertainty of BUS reports positively impacts clinical decision making in infants with possible NEC remains unknown.

Clinical manifestations and long-term outcome of early Lyme neuroborreliosis according to the European Federation of Neurological Societies diagnostic criteria (definite versus possible) in central Europe. A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The characteristics and long-term outcome of Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB) according to diagnostic certainty (definite vs. possible) are incompletely understood.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of adults with definite or possible LNB, clinical and microbiological characteristics and long-term outcome over 12 months were evaluated at a single medical center. Severity of acute disease and long-term outcome were assessed using a composite clinical score encompassing clinical findings and symptoms and by the probability of incomplete recovery.

RESULTS

Amongst 311 adult patients enrolled from 2008 to 2017, 139 (44.7%) had definite LNB and 172 (55.3%) had possible LNB. The most frequent LNB manifestation was cranial neuropathy with or without meningitis (53.4%). Patients with definite LNB more often had Bannwarth syndrome (53.2% vs. 18.6%), more severe disease (6 points vs. 4 points), longer pre-treatment duration (median 21 days vs. 13.5 days), higher cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis (median 139 × 10⁶ /L vs. 11 × 10⁶ /L) and higher rate of Borrelia seropositivity (84.2% vs. 68.6%) than those with possible LNB. Ceftriaxone was prescribed more often than oral doxycycline in definite LNB than in possible LNB (96.4% vs. 65.7%). Unfavorable outcomes decreased during follow-up, being higher in patients with more severe disease at enrollment and in those with possible LNB, but were not associated with antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Early LNB, most often presenting as cranial neuropathy, was definitively diagnosed in less than half of cases. A better diagnostic approach is needed to confirm borrelial etiology. Ceftriaxone was not superior to doxycycline in the treatment of early LNB, regardless of diagnostic certainty. In this retrospective cohort study of 311 adults with Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB), allocated according to diagnostic certainty, early LNB was definitively diagnosed in less than half of cases and the most frequent LNB manifestation was cranial neuropathy with or without meningitis. Patients with definite LNB more often had Bannwarth syndrome, more severe disease, longer pre-treatment duration, higher cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis and higher rate of Borrelia seropositivity than those with possible LNB. A better diagnostic approach is needed to confirm borrelial etiology. Ceftriaxone was not superior to doxycycline in the treatment of early LNB, regardless of diagnostic certainty.

Radiologist Reporting and Operational Management for Patients With Suspected COVID-19

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the adoption and outcomes of locally designed reporting guidelines for patients with possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

A departmental guideline was developed for radiologists that specified reporting terminology and required communication for patients with imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19, on the basis of patient test status and imaging indication. In this retrospective study, radiology reports completed from March 1, 2020, to May 3, 2020, that mentioned COVID-19 were reviewed. Reports were divided into patients with known COVID-19, patients with "suspected" COVID-19 (having an order indication of respiratory or infectious signs or symptoms), and "unsuspected patients" (other order indications, eg, trauma or non-chest pain). The primary outcome was the percentage of COVID-19 reports using recommended terminology; the secondary outcome was percentages of suspected and unsuspected patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Relationships between categorical variables were assessed using the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Among 77,400 total reports, 1,083 suggested COVID-19 on the basis of imaging findings; 774 of COVID-19 reports (71%) used recommended terminology. Of 574 patients without known COVID-19 at the time of interpretation, 345 (60%) were eventually diagnosed with COVID-19, including 61% (315 of 516) of suspected and 52% (30 of 58) of unsuspected patients. Nearly all unsuspected patients (46 of 58) were identified on CT.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists rapidly adopted recommended reporting terminology for patients with suspected COVID-19. The majority of patients for whom radiologists raised concern for COVID-19 were subsequently diagnosed with the disease, including the majority of clinically unsuspected patients. Using unambiguous terminology and timely notification about previously unsuspected patients will become increasingly critical to facilitate COVID-19 testing and contact tracing as states begin to lift restrictions.

Early Adoption of a Certainty Scale to Improve Diagnostic Certainty Communication

OBJECTIVE

Assess the early voluntary adoption of a certainty scale to improve communicating diagnostic certainty in radiology reports.

METHODS

This institutional review board-approved study was part of a multifaceted initiative to improve radiology report quality at a tertiary academic hospital. A committee comprised of radiology subspecialty division representatives worked to develop recommendations for communicating varying degrees of diagnostic certainty in radiology reports in the form of a certainty scale, made publicly available online, which specified the terms recommended and the terms to be avoided in radiology reports. Twelve radiologists voluntarily piloted the scale; use was not mandatory. We assessed proportion of recommended terms among all diagnostic certainty terms in the Impression section (primary outcome) of all reports generated by the radiologists. Certainty terms were extracted via natural language processing over a 22-week postintervention period (31,399 reports) and compared with the same 22 calendar weeks 1 year pre-intervention (24,244 reports) using Fisher's exact test and statistical process control charts.

RESULTS

Overall, the proportion of recommended terms significantly increased from 8,498 of 10,650 (80.0%) pre-intervention to 9,646 of 11,239 (85.8%) postintervention (P < .0001 and by statistical process control). The proportion of recommended terms significantly increased for 8 of 12 radiologists (P < .0005 each), increased insignificantly for 3 radiologists (P > .05), and decreased without significance for 1 radiologist.

CONCLUSION

Designing and implementing a certainty scale was associated with increased voluntary use of recommended certainty terms in a small radiologist cohort. Larger-scale interventions will be needed for adoption of the scale across a broad range of radiologists.

Willingness to pay for diagnostic certainty: comparing patients, physicians, and managed care executives

Cost-effectiveness analyses routinely ignore the value of diagnostic certainty. Moreover, no previous study has compared this value among different stakeholders. We surveyed 25 patients, 28 physicians, and 23 managed care executives to compare their willingness to pay for diagnostic information for peptic ulcer disease. Patients (84%) were most likely, and executives (43%) least likely, to be willing to pay at least $1 (median willingness to pay < $50). Differences in willingness to pay among stakeholders indicate potential for conflicts over access to tests. Although nearly all patients valued diagnostic certainty, its value was generally small and insufficient to change the cost-effectiveness ranking of treatment alternatives.