Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jun;9(3):287-301.
doi: 10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0. Epub 2018 Mar 28.

Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review

Håkan Geijer  1 , Mats Geijer  2   3
Affiliations
Review

Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review

Håkan Geijer et al. Insights Imaging. 2018 Jun.

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 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.

Keywords: Diagnostic errors; Diagnostic imaging; Observer variation; Quality assurance, healthcare; Review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lauritzen PM, Hurlen P, Sandbaek G, Gulbrandsen P. Double reading rates and quality assurance practices in Norwegian hospital radiology departments: two parallel national surveys. Acta Radiol. 2015;56:78–86. - PubMed
    1. Husby JA, Espeland A, Kalyanpur A, Brocker C, Haldorsen IS. Double reading of radiological examinations in Norway. Acta Radiol. 2011;52:516–521. - PubMed
    1. Birkelo CC, Chamberlain WE, et al. Tuberculosis case finding; a comparison of the effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. J Am Med Assoc. 1947;133:359–366. - PubMed
    1. Garland LH. On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology. 1949;52:309–328. - PubMed
    1. Lindgren EA, Patel MD, Wu Q, Melikian J, Hara AK. The clinical impact of subspecialized radiologist reinterpretation of abdominal imaging studies, with analysis of the types and relative frequency of interpretation discrepancies. Abdom Imaging. 2014;39:1119–1126. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources