ArticleEmergency radiology2026
Chest radiography: an underappreciated source of litigation exposure in emergency radiology.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeChest radiographs are the most frequently performed imaging examination yet remain vulnerable to interpretive errors, particularly in the high-volume emergency radiology setting. This analysis reviewed published cases in a legal database involving chest radiograph interpretation to highlight recurring medicolegal themes and their implications for emergency radiology practice. While published legal opinions cannot estimate malpractice incidence, they provide valuable insight into potentially modifiable sources of diagnostic error.
methodsA retrospective review of the LEXIS/NEXIS legal database identified publishedopinions from July 1, 2021, to July 14, 2026 involving chest radiograph interpretation. Manually reviewed cases in which chest radiograph interpretation contributed meaningfully to the litigation were analyzed thematically. Medicare Physician Fee Schedule reimbursement and work relative value unit (RVU) data were reviewed for economic context.
resultsFifty-four published cases met inclusion criteria. The most frequent themes involvedfailure to diagnose cancers/masses/tumors (n = 16, 29.6%), cardiovascular abnormalities (13.0%), infection (13.0%), trauma (11.1%), and misplaced lines/tubes(11.1%). Although published opinions represent only a subset of malpractice claims,they demonstrated recurring patterns of perceptual and communication-related error within a high examination volume practice environment characterized by lowreimbursement and RVU assignment.
conclusionPublished judicial opinions, though representing only a fraction of claims, illustrate preventable errors in a high-volume modality relevant to emergency radiologists.Findings support continued emphasis on structured search patterns, comparison with prior examinations, effective communication, and, where available, adjunctive AI-assistanceas a second reader to help mitigate risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42764325What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.