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.