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

ConclusionsThe 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.

Source: Insights into Imaging - March 28, 2018 Category: Radiology Source Type: research