> Radiologists in first-world medical systems don't really miss a lot of stuff, though. From "Discrepancy and Error in Radiology: Concepts, Causes and Consequ

> Radiologists in first-world medical systems don't really miss a lot of stuff, though. From "Discrepancy and Error in Radiology: Concepts, Causes and Consequences" (2011) (https://www.ums.ac.uk/umj081/081(1)003.pdf https://www.ums.ac.uk/umj081/081(1)003.pdf): > In the 1970s, it was found that 71% of lung cancers detected on screening radiographs were visible in retrospect on previous films [4,6]. > The “average” observer has been found to miss 30% of visible lesions on barium enemas [4]. > A 1999 study found that 19% of lung cancers presenting as a nodular lesion on chest x-rays were missed [7]. > Another study identified major disagreement between 2 observers in interpreting x-rays of patients in an emergency department in 5-9% of cases, with an estimated incidence of errors per observer of 3-6% [8]. > A 1997 study using experienced radiologists reporting a collection of normal and abnormal x-rays found an overall 23% error rate when no clinical information was supplied, falling to 20% when clinical details were available [9]. > A recent report suggests a significant major discrepancy rate (13%) between specialist neuroradiology second opinion and primary general radiology opinion [10]. > A recent review found a “real-time” error rate among radiologists in their day-to-day practices averages 3-5% > In patients subsequently diagnosed with lung or breast cancer with previous “normal” relevant radiologic studies, retrospective review of the chest radiographs (in the case of lung cancer) or mammogram (in breast cancer cases) identified the lung cancer in as many as 90% and the breast cancer in as many as 75% of cases [11]. > A Mayo Clinic study of autopsies published in 2000, which compared clinical diagnoses with post-mortem diagnoses, found that in 26% of cases, a major diagnosis was missed clinically [11].