THURSDAY, July 29 (HealthDay News) -- Radiologists blinded to clinical outcomes and medico-legal status may be more objective than paid expert witnesses in determining whether a standard of care was met, according to research published in the August issue of the American Journal of Roentgenology that found 31 radiologists in disagreement with the conclusions of paid medical expert witnesses over the findings of computed tomography (CT) scans used in a lawsuit.
Richard C. Semelka, M.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues sent images from six CT scans (two from screening after major trauma, one of which was from a settled lawsuit; three from emergency department evaluations; and one being a control) to 31 radiologists to determine if the findings that expert witnesses in legal cases consider critical and standard of care would be identified by radiologists blinded to clinical outcomes and legal circumstances.
The researchers found that, overall, the radiologists in the study did not come to the three conclusions identified by the expert witnesses in the lawsuit: none found the T3 vertebral fracture, 19 (61.3 percent) identified the T10 fracture, and none identified the 1 mm symmetric widening of facet joints at T10. In the major trauma case that had not been the subject of a lawsuit, 30 of the 31 radiologists identified all the findings.
"Thirty-one radiologists who had no knowledge of the clinical outcome or litigation did not confirm the expert witness interpretation. This finding prompts questions about the current method of determining standard of care in legal cases, that is, use of paid medical expert witnesses. Our findings suggest that use of radiologists blinded to clinical outcome may be a more objective method of evaluating legal cases," the authors write.
Abstract
Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)
