oru.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology, a systematic review
Örebro University, School of Medical Sciences. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3253-8967
Örebro University, School of Medical Sciences. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden; Department of Radiology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0529-7723
2018 (English)In: Insight into Imaging, ISSN 1869-4101, E-ISSN 1869-4101, Vol. 9, no 3, p. 287-301Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2018. Vol. 9, no 3, p. 287-301
Keywords [en]
Diagnostic errors, Observer variation, Diagnostic imaging, Review, Quality assurance, healthcare
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-66447DOI: 10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0ISI: 000434755100002PubMedID: 29594850Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85048261776OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-66447DiVA, id: diva2:1197674
Available from: 2018-04-13 Created: 2018-04-13 Last updated: 2018-08-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Geijer, HåkanGeijer, Mats

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Geijer, HåkanGeijer, Mats
By organisation
School of Medical Sciences
In the same journal
Insight into Imaging
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 546 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf