Setting: The radiology department in a university hospital.
Methods: Fifty sets of radiographs from 25 children with elbow injuries were reviewed by two residents, two emergency physicians, and one pediatric radiologist using a standard classification of injuries. For each child, there were two sets of radiographs: one of the injured elbow and one of both the injured and the uninjured elbow. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results, s~ statistics were used to determine interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Missea diagnoses were divided into those that were clinically relevant and those that were not.
Results: The overall percentage of correct diagnoses (one versus two elbow radiographs) were as follows: residents, 69% versus 70%; emergency physicians, 62% versus 67%; and pediatric radiologist, 74% versus 72% (P> .05). ~ scores for interobserver variability and intrarater agreement were in the moderate range (.383 to .805; ~:, .08). Clinically relevant diagnoses were missed by trainees and emergency physicians regardless of whether radiographs of just the injured elbow or both the injured and the uninjured elbow were interpreted. Incorrect radiograph interpretations were due to false-positives in 17 of 23 cases.
Conclusion:
Comparison radiographs of the uninjured elbow did not improve diagnostic accuracy in elbow trauma in the pediatric emergency department.
[Chacon D, Kissoon N, Brown T, Galpin R: Use of comparison radiographs in the diagnosis of traumatic injuries of the elbow. Ann Emerg Med