Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025. Vol. 70. № 6
DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-6-40-44
V.A. Nechaev1, 2, A.Yu. Vasil’ev3
Incidence and Spectrum of Radiologic Technicians’ Errors in Magnetic Resonance Imaging
1 S.S. Yudin Moscow City Hospital, Moscow, Russia
2 Russian University of Medicine, Moscow, Russia
3 Central Radiology Research Institute, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: V.A. Nechaev, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To study the frequency and spectrum of radiologic technician errors in MRI.
Material and methods: 940 MRI studies of different anatomical localization were retrospectively analyzed for compliance with the following quality criteria: “stacking/positioning”, “artifacts”, “contrasting”, “correspondence of the name to the performed study”. Patients aged 20 to 93 years.
Results: Defects in MRT examination were detected in 217 (23.1%) observations, while in 4.5 % of cases the examination should have been repeated. Most of them were “avoidable artifacts” (11.9 %) and violation of the rules of “stacking and positioning” (9.7 %). The most frequent errors in MRI performance were noted in bone and joint system (38.7 %), pelvic (29.0 %) and brain (19.4 %) examinations.
Conclusion: In order to ensure patient safety in the context of increased demands on the quality of medical services, it is crucial to pay close attention to the problem of errors by radiographers when performing MRI. The development of measures aimed at minimizing defects in the work of nursing staff will help to avoid repeat examinations and potentially reduce the likelihood of interpretation errors in the work of the radiologist.
Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging, radiologic technician, errors
For citation: Nechaev VA, Vasil’ev AYu. Incidence and Spectrum of Radiologic Technicians’ Errors in Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025;70(6):40–44. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-6-40-44
References
1. Ahn Y., Hong G.S., Park K.J., et al. Impact of Diagnostic Errors on Adverse Outcomes: Learning from Emergency Department Revisits with Repeat CT or MRI. Insights Imaging. 2021;12;1:160. doi: 10/1185/s13244-021-01108-0
2. Mittendorff L., Young A., Sim J. A Narrative Review of Current and Emerging MRI Safety Issues: what Every MRI Technologist (Radiographer) Needs to Know. J Med Radiat Sci. 2022;69;2:250–260. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.546
3. Almehmadi M.S., Aljabri M.A., Aljabri E.A., et al. The Role of Radiology Technologists in Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy and Patient Care. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research. 2024;7;S8:3112–3120. doi: 10.63278/jicrcr.vi.2346
4. Pavlova T.V. Radiation Diagnostics of Iatrogenic Damage to the Mammary Glands Caused by the Work of X-Ray Technicians during Mammography. Radiologiya – Praktika = Radiology and Practice. 2020;5:18–31 (In Russ.).
5. Nechayev V.A., Vasil’yev A.Yu. Risk Factors for the Occurrence of Perception Errors in Radiologists when Analyzing Radiation Studies. Vestnik SurGU. Meditsina = Bulletin of Surgut State University. Medicine. 2024;17; 4:14–22 (In Russ.). doi:10.35266/2949-3447-2024-4-2.
6. Nechayev V.A., Vasil’yev A.Yu. Approaches to the Classification of Errors in Radiation Diagnostics: a Review. Luchevaya Diagnostika i Terapiya = Diagnostic Radiology and Radiotherapy. 2024;15;2:19–24 (In Russ.). doi: 10.22328/2079-5343-2024-15-2-19-24.
7. Herzog R. Elgort D.R., Flanders A.E., Moley P.J. Variability in Diagnostic Error Rates of 10 MRI Centers Performing Lumbar Spine MRI Examinations on the Same Patient within a 3-week Period. The Spine Journal. 2017;17;4: 554–561. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.11.009.
8. Graber M.L. Progress Understanding Diagnosis and Diagnostic Errors: thoughts at Year 10. Diagnosis. 2020; 7;3: 151–159. doi: 10.1515/dx-2020-0055.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. All authors confirm their authorship in accordance with the international ICMJE criteria (all authors made a significant contribution to the development of the concept, the conduct of the research, and the preparation of the article, and read and approved the final version before publication). The greatest contribution was made by V.A. Nechaev for the collection of material and preparation of the manuscript, and by A.Yu. Vasilyev for the concept and work plan.
Article received: 20.07.2025. Accepted for publication: 25.08.2025.