Analysis of errors made on in utero MR studies of the foetal brain in the MERIDIAN study

• Published in: European radiology 2019-01, Vol.29 (1), p.195-201
• Main Authors: Batty, Ruth, Gawne-Cain, Mary L., Mooney, Cara, Mandefield, Laura, Bradburn, Michael, Mason, Gerald, Griffiths, Paul D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abnormalities; Accuracy; Brain; Brain - abnormalities; Brain - diagnostic imaging; Clinical Competence; Cognitive ability; Cohort Studies; Correlation analysis; Diagnostic Errors - statistics & numerical data; Diagnostic Radiology; Diagnostic systems; Error detection; Female; Fetus - abnormalities; Fetus - diagnostic imaging; Fetuses; Humans; Imaging; Internal Medicine; Interventional Radiology; Magnetic Resonance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - standards; Medical diagnosis; Medical imaging; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neuroimaging; Neuroradiology; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis - methods; Prenatal Diagnosis - standards; Prospective Studies; Radiology; Retrospective Studies; Side effects; Statistical analysis; Ultrasound
• ISSN: 0938-7994; 1432-1084
• DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5508-x

Objectives In utero magnetic resonance (iuMR) imaging to diagnose foetal brain abnormalities has been established and is supported by meta-analyses of retrospective and prospective studies. In this paper we describe and classify the iuMR errors made in the largest diagnostic accuracy study to date (MERIDIAN). We also correlate the error rates and types with the prior experience of the reporting radiologists in order to inform how to provide a national programme with the best diagnostic accuracy achievable. Methods The MERIDIAN cohort of 570 foetus formed the basis of this study and included 40 cases with a confirmed diagnostic error, compared with the Outcome Reference Diagnosis. Analysis included the potential clinical effect of the error and classification of error type through an Expert Neuroradiological Panel re-reporting the study. Assessments were made regarding radiologists experience prior to MERIDIAN. Results The overall confirmed error rate for iuMR was 7·0% and it was considered that there would have been an adverse effect on prognostic information in 22/40 cases if the iuMR had informed counselling. The experienced central reporter made statistically significant fewer errors than the less experienced non-central reporters (3·8% v 11·0%) and the central reporter made fewer clinically significant errors. Furthermore, the type of cognitive errors differed between central and non-central reporters. Conclusions Although iuMR imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of detecting foetal brain abnormalities there remains a substantial error rate, which can have major clinical significance. We have shown that error rates are lower for more experienced reporting radiologists with fewer potential deleterious clinical implications. We discuss the implications of these findings in terms of providing a uniform national service. Key Points • Overall confirmed error rate for iuMR diagnosing foetal brain abnormalities was 7·0%. • IuMR reports had an adverse effect on counselling in 55% of error cases. • Error rates are consistently lower for more experienced radiologists. • Collaboration between radiologists, dual reporting, overseeing scan and formal training can reduce errors.