A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

CT screening for lung cancer: value of expert review of initial baseline screenings. | LitMetric

OBJECTIVE. Appropriate radiologic interpretation of screening CT can minimize unnecessary workup and intervention. This is particularly challenging in the baseline round. We report on the quality assurance process we developed for the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS. After initial training at the coordinating center, radiologists at 10 participating institutions and at the center independently interpreted the first 100 baseline screenings. The radiologist at the institutions had access to the center interpretations before issuing the final reports. After the first 100 screenings, the interpretations were jointly discussed. This report summarizes the results of the initial 100 dual interpretations at the 10 institutions. RESULTS. The final institution interpretations agreed with the center in 895 of the 1000 interpretations. Compared with the center, the frequency of positive results was higher at eight of the 10 institutions. The most frequent reason of discrepant interpretations was not following the protocol (n = 55) and the least frequent was not identifying a nodule (n = 3). CONCLUSION. The quality assurance process helped focus educational programs and provided an excellent vehicle for review of the protocol with participating physicians. It also suggests that the rate of positive results can be reduced by such measures.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12526DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lung cancer
8
baseline screenings
8
quality assurance
8
assurance process
8
interpretations
6
center
5
screening lung
4
cancer expert
4
expert review
4
review initial
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!