Skip to main content
. 2019 Aug 26;30(2):1137–1144. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06382-7

Table 2.

Patient and abdominal imaging examination characteristics for which a secondary interpretation was requested (N = 2225)

Variable n (%)
Sex
  Female 1260 (56.6)
  Male 965 (43.4)
Hospital status
  Inpatient 95 (4.3)
  Outpatient 2130 (95.7)
Indication for the secondary interpretation
  Infectious 10 (0.4)
  Inflammatory 43 (1.9)
  Oncologic 1705 (76.6)
  Trauma 18 (0.8)
  Vascular 21 (0.9)
  Miscellaneous 428 (19.2)
Imaging modalities for secondary interpretation*
  CT 1839 (71.8)
  Fluoroscopy 14 (0.5)
  MRI 668 (26.1)
  Ultrasonography 31 (1.2)
  X-Ray 10 (0.4)
Number of imaging modalities per secondary interpretation
  1 1898 (85.3)
  2 322 (14.5)
  3 4 (0.2)
  4 1 (0.0)
Body region for secondary interpretation*
  Full abdomen 593 (23.1)
  Upper abdomen 454 (17.7)
  Lower abdomen 256 (10.0)
  Full chest and abdomen 1089 (42.5)
  Abdomen in combination with other body regions 129 (5.0)
  Scans of other body regions 41 (1.6)
Recommendation for additional imaging (RAI)
  Yes 239 (10.7)
  No 1984 (89.2)

*As some secondary imaging interpretations involved an evaluation of multiple imaging modalities, the numbers of imaging modalities and body regions for secondary interpretation are higher than the number of reports included in this study