ReviewInsights into imaging2018
Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
46 citing papers in PubMed.
- Missed Incidental Lung Cancer on Neck CT: Determinants and Impact on Diagnostic Delay and Stage Shift.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Can AI substitute the first reader in chest radiograph screening? A retrospective non-inferiority evaluation.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Error Detection in Emergency Radiology Reports Using a Large Language Model: Multistage Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Discrepancies between community interpretations and emergency radiology re-interpretation of imaging exams on trauma patients transferred to a level 1 trauma center.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Accuracy and operational performance of computer-aided detection software use cases for TB screening: a retrospective comparative evaluation in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Identifying implementation strategies to increase the early detection of cardiac amyloidosis: a pre-implementation study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- When One Fracture Hides Another: A Case Highlighting Cognitive Bias in Trauma Reporting.Cureus · 2025Article
- Reflections on training and management of junior radiologists through analysis of correction rates in emergency radiology reports.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Value of Neuroradiology Second Reads of CT Scans for Hyperparathyroidism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The use of large language models in detecting Chinese ultrasound report errors.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- AI-assisted radiologists vs. standard double reading for rib fracture detection on CT images: A real-world clinical study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Comparison of thoracic computed tomography and surgical reports in dogs and cats.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Image-Defined Risk Factor (IDRF) Assessment in Patients With Intermediate-risk Neuroblastoma: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group Study ANBL0531.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2025Article
- Quantitative Approach to Quality Review of Prenatal Ultrasound Examinations: Estimated Fetal Weight and Fetal Sex.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the impact of trained Radiologist Assistants in a busy emergency teleradiology practice: a comprehensive evaluation.Emergency radiology · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted double reading of chest radiographs to detect clinically relevant missed findings: a two-centre evaluation.European radiology · 2024Article
- Quantitative Approach to Quality Review of Prenatal Ultrasound Examinations: Fetal Biometry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Improving traumatic fracture detection on radiographs with artificial intelligence support: a multi-reader study.BJR open · 2024Article
- Discrepancies between Radiology Specialists and Residents in Fracture Detection from Musculoskeletal Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence for Chest Radiograph Interpretation in the Emergency Department.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDouble 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsThe 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.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.