Figura 1. Principais Determinantes da Responsabilidade Civil em Radiologia
Artigo de revisão
Mapping International Legal Standards, Global Litigation Patterns, and the Reconfiguration of Liability in Radiology
Como citar: Neto JMDS, Silva VDS. Mapping International Legal Standards, Global Litigation Patterns, and the Reconfiguration of Liability in Radiology. Persp Med Legal Pericia Med. Vol. 11, 2026; 260647.
https://dx.doi.org/10.47005/260647
Recebido em 22/05/2026
Aceito em 23/06/2026
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Mapping International Legal Standards, Global Litigation Patterns, and the Reconfiguration of Liability in Radiology
Resumo
Objetivo: Mapear as evidências sobre a responsabilidade civil do médico radiologista em erros diagnósticos por imagem, identificando determinantes de litígio, padrões jurídicos internacionais e o impacto de tecnologias emergentes. Métodos: Revisão de escopo conduzida conforme as diretrizes do Joanna Briggs Institute e reportada segundo o checklist PRISMA-ScR. As buscas foram realizadas nas bases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS e SciELO, complementadas por busca manual em listas de referências e literatura cinzenta. Após triagem independente em três etapas e remoção de duplicatas, foram incluídos 90 estudos de 17 países, publicados entre 1996 e 2026. Resultados: O erro diagnóstico constitui a principal causa de reivindicações por má prática contra radiologistas em todas as jurisdições analisadas, sendo os erros perceptivos responsáveis pela maioria dos casos. A oncologia representa o principal foco de risco jurídico, tanto em frequência quanto em magnitude das indenizações, seguida pela radiologia musculoesquelética e do trauma. A falha na comunicação de achados críticos emerge como causa independente de responsabilização, podendo resultar em condenação mesmo na presença de interpretação adequada. Apesar das diferenças entre sistemas jurídicos, há convergência nesses padrões. A inteligência artificial e a telerradiologia introduzem novos vetores de risco, como viés de automação e opacidade algorítmica, ainda sem jurisprudência consolidada. Conclusão: O erro diagnóstico e as falhas na comunicação de achados críticos são os principais determinantes da responsabilidade civil em radiologia, com destaque para o erro perceptivo e a oncologia. A documentação do raciocínio diagnóstico e a qualidade do laudo configuram fatores relevantes de proteção jurídica.
Palavras Chave: Radiologia; Erros Diagnósticos; Resposabilidade; Imperícia; Erros de Diagnóstico; Revisão de Escopo.
Abstract
Objective: To map the evidence on the civil liability of radiologists in diagnostic imaging errors, identifying litigation determinants, international legal patterns, and the impact of emerging technologies. Methods: A scoping review conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and SciELO, supplemented by manual reference list searches and grey literature. After independent three-stage screening and duplicate removal, 90 studies from 17 countries published between 1996 and 2026 were included. Results: Diagnostic error is the leading cause of malpractice claims against radiologists across all jurisdictions analyzed, with perceptual errors accounting for the majority of cases. Oncology represents the primary focus of legal risk, both in frequency and magnitude of indemnities, followed by musculoskeletal and trauma radiology. Failure to communicate critical findings emerges as an independent cause of liability, potentially resulting in judgment even when interpretation was adequate. Despite differences across legal systems, these patterns show notable convergence. Artificial intelligence and teleradiology introduce new risk vectors, including automation bias and algorithmic opacity, with no consolidated jurisprudence to date. Conclusion: Diagnostic error and failure to communicate critical findings are the main determinants of civil liability in radiology, with perceptual error and oncology as primary risk foci. Adequate documentation of diagnostic reasoning and report quality constitute relevant legal protective factors.
Keywords (MeSH): Radiology; Diagnostic Errors; Liability, Legal; Malpractice; Patient Safety; Scoping Review.
References
1. Waheed S, Tahir MJ, Ullah I, Alwalid O, Irshad SG, Asghar MS, et al. The impact of dependence on advanced imaging techniques on the current radiology practice. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;78:103708. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103708.
2. Aldhafeeri, F.M. Governing Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: A Systematic Review of Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Frameworks. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 2300
3. Towsley-Cook DM, Young TA. Ethical and Legal Issues for Imaging Professionals. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007.
4. Brady AP. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging. 2017;8(1):171-182. doi:10.1007/s13244-016-0534-1
5. Berlin L. Radiologic Errors and Malpractice: A Blurry Distinction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(3):517-522. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2209
6. Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(3):611-617. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.10375
7. Whang JS, Baker SR, Patel R, Luk L, Castro A 3rd. The causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States. Radiology. 2013;266(2):548-554. doi:10.1148/radiol.12111119
8. Siegal D, Stratchko LM, DeRoo C. The role of radiology in diagnostic error: a medical malpractice claims review. Diagnosis (Berl). 2017;4(3):125-131. doi:10.1515/dx-2017-0025
9. Harvey HB, Tomov E, Babayan A, Dwyer K, Boland S, Pandharipande PV, et al. Radiology Malpractice Claims in the United States From 2008 to 2012: Characteristics and Implications. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(2):124-130. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.013
10. Fileni A, Magnavita N, Mirk P, Iavicoli I, Magnavita G, Bergamaschi A. Radiologic malpractice litigation risk in Italy: an observational study over a 14-year period. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):1040-1046. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3457
11. Halpin SFS. Medico-legal claims against English radiologists: 1995-2006. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(984):982-988. doi:10.1259/bjr/61782960
12. Tarkiainen T, Turpeinen M, Haapea M, Liukkonen E, Niinimäki J. Investigating errors in medical imaging: medical malpractice cases in Finland. Insights Imaging. 2021;12(86). doi:10.1186/s13244-021-01011-8
13. Kwee RM, Kwee TC. Medical disciplinary jurisprudence in alleged malpractice in radiology: 10-year Dutch experience. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(6):3507-3515. doi:10.1007/s00330-020-06685-0
14. Fontana MP, Liedke GS, Fontoura HS, Silveira HLD, Silveira HED. Civil liability related to imaging exams in Brazil. Braz J Oral Sci. 2015;14(1):10-15.
15. Prestes L, Tourinho E, Rangel M. Medico-legal analysis of lawsuits in medical imaging. Radiol Bras. 2012;45(2):98-100.
16. Fenelon S. Aspectos ético-legais em Imaginologia. Radiol Bras. 2003;36(1):III-VI.
17. Cannavale A, Santoni M, Mancarella P, Passariello R, Arbarello P. Malpractice in Radiology: What Should You Worry About? Radiology Research and Practice. 2013;2013:219259. doi:10.1155/2013/219259
18. Biswas S, Biswas S, Awal SS, Goyal H. Malpractice and lawsuits in radiology: what the radiologist should know. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2023;54(19). doi:10.1186/s43055-023-00971-9
19. Wojdyla LM, Chen JY. Navigating Malpractice: Guide for U.S. Radiologists. RadioGraphics. 2025;45(5):e240092. doi:10.1148/rg.240092
20. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology. Perceptual errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(3):587-590. doi:10.2214/ajr.167.3.8751657
21. Pinto A, Brunese L. Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology. World J Radiol. 2010;2(10):377-383. doi:10.4329/wjr.v2.i10.377
22. García C. Anatomía del error en radiología. Rev Chil Radiol. 2003;9(3):144-150.
23. Ortega D, García C, Zárate M. Perspectivas de los radiólogos con respecto al error y a la tribunalización en el ejercicio de la especialidad en Chile. Rev Chil Radiol. 2008;14(3):158-165.
24. Saeed SA, Masroor I, Shafqat G. Learning from errors in radiology to improve patient safety. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2013;23(10):691-694.
25. Alotaibi NA, Yakar D, Glaudemans AWJM, Kwee TC. Diagnostic errors in clinical FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2020;132:109296. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109296
26. Carrara M, Yakar D, Kasalak Ö, Kwee TC. A new complication registration system for errors in radiology: Initial 5-year experience in a tertiary care radiology department. Eur J Radiol. 2020;130:109167. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109167
27. Waite S, Scott J, Gale B, Fuchs T, Kolla S, Reede D. Interpretive Error in Radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(4):739-749. doi:10.2214/AJR.16.16963
28. Waite S, Moore J, Legasto A, Kolla S, Gale B, Krupinski EA. Systemic Error in Radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(3):629-639. doi:10.2214/AJR.16.17719
29. Pinto A, Caranci F, Romano L, Carrafiello G, Fonio P, Brunese L. Learning From Errors in Radiology: A Comprehensive Review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2012;33(4):379-382. doi:10.1053/j.sult.2012.01.015
30. Harolds JA. Quality and Safety in Health Care, Part XIII: Detecting and Analyzing Diagnostic Errors. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41(8):626-628. doi:10.1097/RLU.0000000000001246
31. Rosenkrantz AB, Siegal D, Skillings JA, Muellner A, Nass SJ, Hricak H. Oncologic Errors in Diagnostic Radiology: A 10-Year Analysis Based on Medical Malpractice Claims. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18(9):1310-1316. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2021.05.001
32. Fileni A, Magnavita N, Pescarini L. Analysis of malpractice claims in mammography: a complex issue. Radiol Med. 2009;114(4):636-644. doi:10.1007/s11547-009-0394-6
33. Seely JM, Payant L, Zhang C, Aslanova R, Chothia S, MacIntyre A, et al. Medico-Legal Cases in Breast Imaging in Canada: A Trend Analysis. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2024;75(2):369-376. doi:10.1177/08465371231193366
34. Thomassin-Naggara I, Athanasiou A, Kilburn-Toppin F, Forrai G, Ispas M, Lesaru M, et al. Misdiagnosis in breast imaging: a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)—Part 2. Eur Radiol. 2025;35(5):2397-2411. doi:10.1007/s00330-024-11133-4
35. Chotai N, Gadwal A, Buchireddy D, Yang WT. Why we still miss breast cancers: strategies for improving mammography interpretation. Insights Imaging. 2026;17(8). doi:10.1186/s13244-025-02168-2
36. Wigge P, Schütz JH. Irren ist menschlich: Haftung wegen Diagnose- und/oder Befunderhebungsfehlern sowie Aufklärungsfehlern im Rahmen des Mammografie-Screenings. Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2017;189(08):786-790. doi:10.1055/s-0043-111166
37. Çevik FE, Bayram S, Oduncu M, Beşkoç C, Ceylan MB, Atan Y, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of Medical Malpractice Claims in Spinal Fracture Treatment. Global Spine Journal. 2025;0(0):1-7. doi:10.1177/21925682251384608
38. Working ZM, El Naga AN, Slocum J, Tucker A, Hoogervorst P, Marmor MT. Increased litigation burden among tibia, pelvis, and spine fractures. OTA Int. 2019;2(1):e025. doi:10.1097/OI9.0000000000000025
39. Andersson JK, Gustafson P, Kopylov P. Misdiagnosed and maltreated scaphoid fractures – costly both for society and patients. EFORT Open Rev. 2022;7(2):129-136. doi:10.1530/EOR-21-0108
40. Mota Martínez J, Facal de Castro F, Mirón Mombiela R. Errores diagnósticos en la columna. Radiología. 2016;58(S1):2-12. doi:10.1016/j.rx.2015.11.003
41. Daffner RH. Reviewing CT Scout Images: Observations of an Expert Witness. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205(3):589-591. doi:10.2214/AJR.15.14405
42. Moonen PJ, Mercelina L, Boer W, Fret T. Diagnostic error in the Emergency Department: follow up of patients with minor trauma in the outpatient clinic. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017;25(1):13. doi:10.1186/s13049-017-0361-5
43. Gwynne A, Barber P, Tavener F. A review of 105 negligence claims against accident and emergency departments. J Accid Emerg Med. 1997;14(4):243-245. doi:10.1136/emj.14.4.243
44. Rothwell J, Jha S. Spinal Epidural Abscess and Medical Malpractice: The Role of Diagnostic Imaging in Legal Cases. Acad Radiol. 2025;32(S1):S144-S148. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2025.04.027
45. Chaudhary SR, Jeevika, Roy SG. The Diagnostic Uncertainties and Legal Precedents in Appendicitis Malpractice. Acad Radiol. 2025;32(S1):S109-S113. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2025.05.034
46. Menshawey R, Menshawey E. Even A Worm Will Turn: Appendicitis Malpractice Litigation Since 2020. medRxiv [Preprint]. 2024. doi:10.1101/2024.07.11.24310287
47. Sosner E, Patlas MN, Chernyak V, Dachman AH, Katz DS. Missed Acute Appendicitis on Multidetector Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017;46(6):434-442. doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.03.003
48. Jeevika, Chaudhary SR, Roy S. How Stroke Imaging Shapes Malpractice Risk. Acad Radiol. 2025;32(S1):S114-S118. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2025.06.018
49. Bass JB, Couperus KS, Pfaff JL, et al. A Pair of Testicular Torsion Medicolegal Cases with Caveats: The Ball’s in Your Court. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2018;2(4):283-285. doi:10.5811/cpcem.2018.10.39497
50. Guly HR. Diagnostic errors in an accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2001;18(4):263-269. doi:10.1136/emj.18.4.263
51. Chaudhary S, MD J, Jha S. The Cardiothoracic Ratio on Trial. Acad Radiol. 2025;32(S1):S26-S29. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2025.06.031
52. Shimizu I, Shikino K, Harada Y, Kurihara M, Tanaka K, Masuda Y, et al. Differences in contributing factors to diagnostic errors between physicians and allied health professionals: a nationwide analysis in Japan. BMJ Open Quality. 2025;14(1):e003419. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003419
53. Berlin L, Murphy DR, Singh H. Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum. Diagnosis. 2014;1(4):263-268. doi:10.1515/dx-2014-0034
54. Berlin L. Contemporary Risk Management for Radiologists. RadioGraphics. 2018;38(6):1717-1728. doi:10.1148/rg.2018180012
55. Pinto F, Capodieci G, Setola FR, Limone S, Somma F, Faggian A, Romano L. Communication of Findings of Radiologic Examinations: Medicolegal Considerations. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2012;33(4):376-378. doi:10.1053/j.sult.2012.01.014
56. Corallo L, Macdonald DB, Eldehimi F, Nair AV, Mitchell S. Classification and Communication of Critical Findings in Emergency Radiology: A Scoping Review. J Am Coll Radiol. 2025;22(1):44-55. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2024.09.006
57. Wandtke B, Gallagher S. Reducing Delay in Diagnosis: Multistage Recommendation Tracking. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(5):970-975. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18332
58. Smith LM, King SA, Shealy JA, Heidel RE, Morin-Ducote GI, Husband LD, et al. Incidental Findings in the Trauma Population. J Am Coll Surg. 2021;232(4):380-386. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.11.028
59. Barron BJ, Banja J. Radiologic reporting: the ethical obligation of the interpreting physician to provide an accurate report. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(2):356-360. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9746
60. Gallagher TH, Cook AJ, Brenner RJ, Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, et al. Disclosing harmful mammography errors to patients. Radiology. 2009;253(2):443-452. doi:10.1148/radiol.2532082320
61. Berlin L. Standards for radiology interpretation and reporting in the emergency setting. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38(Suppl 4):S639-S644. doi:10.1007/s00247-008-0989-4
62. Kasalak Ö, Pennings JP, Op den Akker JW, Yakar D, Kwee TC. Why don’t we inform patients about the risk of diagnostic errors? Eur J Radiol. 2023;165:110956. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110956
63. Newman-Toker DE, McDonald KM, Meltzer DO. How much diagnostic safety can we afford, and how should we decide? A health economics perspective. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(Suppl 2):ii11-ii20. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001616
64. Kwee RM, Toxopeus R, Kwee TC. Imaging overuse in the emergency department: The view of radiologists and emergency physicians. Eur J Radiol. 2024;176:111536. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111536
65. De Silva L, Baysari M, Keep M, Kench P, Clarke J. Patient Agency in Imaging: Radiologists’ Insights. Public Health Chall. 2025;4:e70105. doi:10.1002/puh2.70105
66. Itri JN, Krishnaraj A. Do we need a national incident reporting system for medical imaging? J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9(5):329-335. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2011.11.015
67. The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for interpretation and reporting of imaging investigations. 2nd ed. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2018.
68. The Royal College of Radiologists. IR(ME)R: Implications for clinical practice in diagnostic imaging, interventional radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine. London: The Royal College of Radiologists; 2020.
69. Pinto A, Pinto F, Faggian A, Rubini G, Caranci F, Macarini L, et al. Sources of error in emergency ultrasonography. Crit Ultrasound J. 2013;5(Suppl 1):S1. doi:10.1186/2036-7902-5-S1-S1
70. Smereczyński A, Kołaczyk K. Pitfalls in ultrasound imaging of the stomach and the intestines. J Ultrason. 2018;18(74):207-211. doi:10.15557/JoU.2018.0031
71. Stolz L, O’Brien KM, Miller ML, Winters-Brown ND, Blaivas M, Adhikari S. A Review of Lawsuits Related to Point-of-Care Emergency Ultrasound Applications. West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(1):1-4. doi:10.5811/westjem.2014.11.23592
72. Malvasi A, Montanari Vergallo G, Tinelli A, Marinelli E. Can the intrapartum ultrasonography reduce the legal liability in distocic labor and delivery? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(18):2141-2142. doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1306514
73. Pomara C, Pascale N, Maglietta F, Neri M, Riezzo I, Turillazzi E. Use of contrast media in diagnostic imaging: medico-legal considerations. Radiol Med. 2015;120(9):802-809. doi:10.1007/s11547-015-0549-6
74. Carrafiello G, Floridi C, Pellegrino C, Cardim LN, Ierardi AM, Fugazzola C. Errors and Malpractice in Interventional Radiology. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2012;33(4):371-375. doi:10.1053/j.sult.2012.01.008
75. Martines V, Magnaldi S, Di Fazio N, Volonnino G, Marinelli E, De Paola L. Enhancing patient safety and delineating professional liability in radiological procedures involving contrast medium administration. Clin Ter. 2025;176(1):42-46. doi:10.7417/CT.2025.5163
76. Breen MA, Dwyer K, Yu-Moe W, Taylor GA. Pediatric radiology malpractice claims: characteristics and comparison to adult radiology claims. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47(7):808-816. doi:10.1007/s00247-017-3873-2
77. Brown SD. Ethical challenges in child abuse: what is the harm of a misdiagnosis? Pediatr Radiol. 2021;51(6):1070-1075. doi:10.1007/s00247-020-04845-4
78. Mankad K, Chhabda S, Lim W, Oztekin O, Reddy N, Chong WK, et al. The neuroimaging mimics of abusive head trauma. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2019;23(1):19-30. doi:10.1016/j.ejpn.2018.11.006
79. Menashe SJ, Iyer RS, Parisi MT, Otto RK, Stanescu AL. Pediatric Chest Radiographs: Common and Less Common Errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(4):903-911. doi:10.2214/AJR.16.16449
80. Justin GA, Woreta FA, Colyer MH, Auran JD, Pelton RW, Rapuano CJ, et al. Ophthalmic Trauma Malpractice in the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company Database. Eye. 2023;37(4):616-622. doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01893-4
81. De Queiroz FR, Jordão NV, Machado DT. Alleged Misinterpretation of PET-CT in Esophageal Carcinoma Staging: A Medico-Legal Case Report. Cureus. 2026;18(1):e101664. doi:10.7759/cureus.101664
82. Birkenbeuel J, Vu K, Lehricht BM, Abouzari M, Cheung D, Khosravit P, et al. Medical Malpractice of Vestibular Schwannoma: A 40-Year Review of the United States Legal Databases. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(3):391-397. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002133
83. Placke JM, Reis H, Hadaschik E, Roesch A, Schadendorf D, Stoffels I, Klode J. Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine mimics lymph node metastases in patients undergoing skin cancer follow-up. Eur J Cancer. 2021;154:167-174. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.023
84. Morales Santos Á, Lojo Lendoiro S, Rovira Cañellas M, Valdés Solís P. The legal regulation of artificial intelligence in the European Union: A practical guide for radiologists. Radiología. 2024;66(6):431-446. doi:10.1016/j.rx.2023.11.004
85. Chau MT, Spuur KM, White S, Pyper A, Crossman M. Malpractice in the machine age: Legal and ethical responses to machine learning in medical imaging. Radiography. 2026;32:103339. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2026.103339
86. Ungureanu AM, Matei SC, Malita D. Controversies in the Application of AI in Radiology—Is There Medico-Legal Support? Aspects from Romanian Practice. Diagnostics. 2025;15(2):230. doi:10.3390/diagnostics15020230
87. Gourari FM, Alazzam FAF, Shakatreh HJM, Alhajeri SAH, Al Mansoori SAA. Legal Liability for AI-Assisted Radiographic Diagnosis Errors: a Comparative Review of French, Jordanian, and UAE Law. Acta Inform Med. 2025;33(3):184-189. doi:10.5455/aim.2025.33.184-189
88. Di Paolo M, Guidi B, Picano E, Caramella D. Emergency radiology without the radiologist: the forensic perspective. Radiol Med. 2009;114(3):475-483. doi:10.1007/s11547-009-0373-y
89. Mulyani Y, Budianto A. Malpractice Law Update on Radiologists’ Liability in Cases of Diagnostic Errors and Standards of Practice. Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences. 2025;3(3):1339-1347. doi:10.38035/gijlss.v3i3
90. Hafström L, Johansson H, Ahlberg J. Does diagnostic delay of colorectal cancer result in malpractice claims? Patient Saf Surg. 2012;6(1):13. doi:10.1186/1754-9493-6-13
91. Shepherd J, Lourida I, Meertens RM. Radiographer-led discharge for emergency care patients, requiring projection radiography of minor musculoskeletal injuries: a scoping review. BMC Emerg Med. 2022;22(70):1-12. doi:10.1186/s12873-022-00616-6
92. Baker SR, Shah S, Ghosh S. Radiology medical malpractice suits in gastrointestinal radiology: prevalence, causes, and outcomes. Emerg Radiol. 2015;22(1):3-6. doi:10.1007/s10140-014-1268-3
93. Kaviani P, Kalra MK, Digumarthy SR, Gupta RV, Dasegowda G, Jagirdar A, et al. Frequency of Missed Findings on Chest Radiographs in an International, Multicenter Study: Application of AI to Reduce Missed Findings. Diagnostics. 2022;12(10):2382. doi:10.3390/diagnostics12102382
