Results were similar when the analysis was restricted to the 37 lung scans with both perfusion and ventilation studies. The standardized conclusions for these 37 lung scans were 7 “high probability” (18.9%), 22 “no conclusion” (59.5%), and 8 “diagnosis excluded” (21.6%). An agreement among the three clinicians and the standardized conclusions was observed for 12 (32.4%) reports. Table 3 provides examples of disagreement between clinicians according to the words used in descriptive reports.
Discussion
Three senior clinicians reading the same routine descriptive reports of lung scans differed on the probability of pulmonary embolism. Agreement among themselves was poor to moderate. Furthermore, their interpretations of the reports differed widely from the standardized conclusions of nuclear medicine physicians.
One could hypothesize that these differences are partly explained by the lack of ventilation scans in 55% of the patients. Canadian family pharmacy online more This reflected the low availability of cameras in our institution (three cameras for 8,000 examinations per year) as in other nuclear medicine departments in France. According to the knowledge they have from the data reported in other studies, where ventilation scans were recommended, physicians could have considered as “indeterminate” all abnormal perfusion scans when ventilation was not available.