The parameters referred by the present work are: inadequate use, inadequate sensibility and/or inadequate spatial resolution related to the radiological chain process.
In the radiological re-evaluation process, the presence of honeycombing was considered as one of the hardest things to define.
Outcomes are defined within this protocol along; oncological, clinical, aesthetic and functional, patient reported, process and radiological domains.
The approval process and radiological assessment was performed by the core lab (MedQIA, Los Angeles, CA, USA) using a novel standardized computer assisted diagnosis technique with quantitative image analysis).
The objective of this systematic review was to determine the oncological, clinical, aesthetic and functional, patient reported, process and radiological outcomes for AFG.
However, the universal protocol focuses mostly on preventing wrong side/site interventions, whereas the present checklist aims to improve the entire process surrounding radiological interventions.
Several authors addressed the ever increasing image overload, the workflow difficulties of handling huge data volumes and the time-consuming radiological reading and interpretation process [ 1, 2].
A careful analysis must aim to identify risks related to the management of all phases of a process of radiological diagnosis, for measuring and setting actions for prevention and control [ 8– 11].
The aim of this study was to design a specific checklist for IR, and to assess the effect of this checklist on health care processes of radiological interventions.
