{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019955654101995565, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011086474501108648, 'mean_word_length': 5.669950738916256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Added value of radiologist consultation to family practitioners in the outpatient setting.

PURPOSE
To measure the added value of a radiologist's consultation to the interpretation of radiographs previously read by a family practitioner.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
The authors reviewed 1,674 chest and extremity radiographs previously read by a family practitioner and consulting radiologist. The 196 radiographs in which there was a discrepancy between the family practitioner's and radiologist's report were evaluated by a radiologist and family physician not involved in and blinded to the original interpretations. The overall accuracy of the participants was determined and differences statistically quantified.


RESULTS
The overall sensitivity of the radiologists was greater than that of the family practitioners (92% vs 86%); specificity was not significantly different. For extremity examinations, there were no significant differences in accuracy of the radiologists and family practitioners; the sensitivity of radiologists for chest studies was considerably greater (89% vs 80%). Radiologic consultation was of particular value in the detection of pneumonia and masses.


CONCLUSION
At a family practice center, the radiologist's role for extremity radiographs might be limited to individual consultation, with review of all chest radiographs.