Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review
(2018) In Insights into Imaging 9(3). p.287-301- Abstract
Objectives: Double reading in diagnostic radiology can find discrepancies in the original report, but a systematic program of double reading is resource consuming. There are conflicting opinions on the value of double reading. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review on the value of double reading. Methods: A systematic review was performed to find studies calculating the rate of misses and overcalls with the aim of establishing the added value of double reading by human observers. Results: The literature search resulted in 1610 hits. After abstract and full-text reading, 46 articles were selected for analysis. The rate of discrepancy varied from 0.4 to 22% depending on study setting. Double reading by a... (More)
Objectives: Double reading in diagnostic radiology can find discrepancies in the original report, but a systematic program of double reading is resource consuming. There are conflicting opinions on the value of double reading. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review on the value of double reading. Methods: A systematic review was performed to find studies calculating the rate of misses and overcalls with the aim of establishing the added value of double reading by human observers. Results: The literature search resulted in 1610 hits. After abstract and full-text reading, 46 articles were selected for analysis. The rate of discrepancy varied from 0.4 to 22% depending on study setting. Double reading by a sub-specialist, in general, led to high rates of changed reports. Conclusions: The systematic review found rather low discrepancy rates. The benefit of double reading must be balanced by the considerable number of working hours a systematic double-reading scheme requires. A more profitable scheme might be to use systematic double reading for selected, high-risk examination types. A second conclusion is that there seems to be a value of sub-specialisation for increased report quality. A consequent implementation of this would have far-reaching organisational effects. Key Points: • In double reading, two or more radiologists read the same images. • A systematic literature review was performed. • The discrepancy rates varied from 0.4 to 22% in various studies. • Double reading by sub-specialists found high discrepancy rates.
(Less)
- author
- Geijer, Håkan and Geijer, Mats LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2018-06
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Diagnostic errors, Diagnostic imaging, Observer variation, Quality assurance, healthcare, Review
- in
- Insights into Imaging
- volume
- 9
- issue
- 3
- pages
- 15 pages
- publisher
- Springer
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:29594850
- scopus:85048261776
- ISSN
- 1869-4101
- DOI
- 10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 8480ef26-520c-4f20-bac5-18dabc73ecc9
- date added to LUP
- 2019-06-19 13:44:23
- date last changed
- 2024-05-28 16:42:31
@article{8480ef26-520c-4f20-bac5-18dabc73ecc9,
abstract = {{<p>Objectives: Double reading in diagnostic radiology can find discrepancies in the original report, but a systematic program of double reading is resource consuming. There are conflicting opinions on the value of double reading. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review on the value of double reading. Methods: A systematic review was performed to find studies calculating the rate of misses and overcalls with the aim of establishing the added value of double reading by human observers. Results: The literature search resulted in 1610 hits. After abstract and full-text reading, 46 articles were selected for analysis. The rate of discrepancy varied from 0.4 to 22% depending on study setting. Double reading by a sub-specialist, in general, led to high rates of changed reports. Conclusions: The systematic review found rather low discrepancy rates. The benefit of double reading must be balanced by the considerable number of working hours a systematic double-reading scheme requires. A more profitable scheme might be to use systematic double reading for selected, high-risk examination types. A second conclusion is that there seems to be a value of sub-specialisation for increased report quality. A consequent implementation of this would have far-reaching organisational effects. Key Points: • In double reading, two or more radiologists read the same images. • A systematic literature review was performed. • The discrepancy rates varied from 0.4 to 22% in various studies. • Double reading by sub-specialists found high discrepancy rates.</p>}},
author = {{Geijer, Håkan and Geijer, Mats}},
issn = {{1869-4101}},
keywords = {{Diagnostic errors; Diagnostic imaging; Observer variation; Quality assurance, healthcare; Review}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{3}},
pages = {{287--301}},
publisher = {{Springer}},
series = {{Insights into Imaging}},
title = {{Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0}},
doi = {{10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0}},
volume = {{9}},
year = {{2018}},
}