Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hessel, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Swensson, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hessel, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Swensson, R. G.

Radiology, Vol 127, 589-594, Copyright © 1978 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Improving performance by multiple interpretations of chest radiographs: effectiveness and cost

SJ Hessel, PG Herman and RG Swensson

The accuracy and cost of four methods of duplicate reading were evaluated. Eight radiologists interpreted 100 random chest radiographs. Using a third independent interpretation to resolve disagreements between pairs of readers ("Pseudoarbitration") was the most effective method overall, reducing errors 37%, increasing correct interpretations 18%, and adding 19% to the cost of an error-free interpretation. Resolving disagreements in facor of positive diagnoses was the best method for reducing omissions, but it almost doubled false-positive diagnoses. The choice between single and multiple interpretations must be evaluated in each clinical setting and should consider expected improvements in accuracy, implications for patient care, and additional costs.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
H. P. McAdams, E. Samei, J. Dobbins III, G. D. Tourassi, and C. E. Ravin
Recent Advances in Chest Radiography
Radiology, December 1, 2006; 241(3): 663 - 683.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Board Fam MedHome page
P. D. Smith, J. Temte, J. W. Beasley, and M. Mundt
Radiographs in the Office: Is a Second Reading Always Needed?
J Am Board Fam Med, July 1, 2004; 17(4): 256 - 263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
N. R. Lal, U. M. Murray, O. P. Eldevik, and J. S. Desmond
Clinical Consequences of Misinterpretations of Neuroradiologic CT Scans by On-CallRadiology Residents
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 2000; 21(1): 124 - 129.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
P. J. Fultz, C. V. Jacobs, W. J. Hall, R. Gottlieb, D. Rubens, S. M. S. Totterman, S. Meyers, C. Angel, G. D. Priore, D. P. Warshal, et al.
Ovarian Cancer: Comparison of Observer Performance for Four Methods of Interpreting CT Scans
Radiology, August 1, 1999; 212(2): 401 - 410.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
S. C. Weller and N. C. Mann
Assessing Rater Performance without a "Gold Standard" Using Consensus Theory
Med Decis Making, February 1, 1997; 17(1): 71 - 79.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
W. Maguire
Modeling Boolean Decision Rules Applied to Multiple-observer Decision Strategies
Med Decis Making, February 1, 1996; 16(1): 51 - 57.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
C. E. Metz and J.-H. Shen
Gains in Accuracy from Replicated Readings of Diagnostic Images: Prediction and Assessment in Terms of ROC Analysis
Med Decis Making, February 1, 1992; 12(1): 60 - 75.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1978 by the Radiological Society of North America.