Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29614070›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Combining independent decisions increases diagnostic accuracy of reading lumbosacral radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging.

Ralf H J M Kurvers, Annemarie de Zoete, Shelby L Bachman, Paul R Algra, Raymond Ostelo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Human-AI collectives most accurately diagnose clinical vignettes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  4. Automating hybrid collective intelligence in open-ended medical diagnostics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ralf H J M KurversCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3460-0392
Annemarie de ZoeteDepartment of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Shelby L BachmanCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee, Berlin, Germany.
Paul R AlgraDepartment of Radiology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar, the Netherlands.
Raymond OsteloDepartment of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosing the causes of low back pain is a challenging task, prone to errors. A novel approach to increase diagnostic accuracy in medical decision making is collective intelligence, which refers to the ability of groups to outperform individual decision makers in solving problems. We investigated whether combining the independent ratings of chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists can improve diagnostic accuracy when interpreting diagnostic images of the lumbosacral spine. Evaluations were obtained from two previously published studies: study 1 consisted of 13 raters independently rating 300 lumbosacral radiographs; study 2 consisted of 14 raters independently rating 100 lumbosacral magnetic resonance images. In both studies, raters evaluated the presence of "abnormalities", which are indicators of a serious health risk and warrant immediate further examination. We combined independent decisions of raters using a majority rule which takes as final diagnosis the decision of the majority of the group. We compared the performance of the majority rule to the performance of single raters. Our results show that with increasing group size (i.e., increasing the number of independent decisions) both sensitivity and specificity increased in both data-sets, with groups consistently outperforming single raters. These results were found for radiographs and MR image reading alike. Our findings suggest that combining independent ratings can improve the accuracy of lumbosacral diagnostic image reading.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiographyAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLumbosacral RegionReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeSensitivity and SpecificityWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID29614070
PMCPMC5882099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.