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.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.
Collapse