Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals

R. L. Siegle, E. M. Baram, S. R. Reuter, Ewell A Clarke, Jack L Lancaster, C. A. McMahan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

67 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives. Prospective studies of radiologists' interpretations of selected radiographs reported 20-40 years ago indicated error rates of 30% and higher. The authors retrospectively evaluated the interpretations of groups of radiologists and determined a range of rates of disagreement in interpretation. Quality assessment or recredentialing may add to the importance of such studies in the future. Materials and Methods. Over a 7-year period, a team of radiologists reviewed imaging interpretations in the radiology departments of six community hospitals. Each review, which lasted about 3 days, included evaluation of the interpretations of a 3%-4% sample of the images read by the radiologists at these hospitals. Reading errors were quantitated and evaluated qualitatively. Results. In a review of over 11,000 images read by 35 radiologists, the authors found a 4.4% mean rate of interpretation disagreement; only one radiologist had a mean rate above 8%. Qualitative analysis of the interpretation errors revealed a mean rate of 3.0% of errors that were considered to be below an acceptable standard of care. Radiologists whose errors included a relatively high proportion of false-positive findings tended to make relatively fewer total errors. Conclusion. Rates of disagreement for a broad range of studies that radiologists interpret in a community hospital setting appear to be far lower than earlier studies on selective radiographs indicated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)148-154
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1998

Fingerprint

Community Hospital
Radiologists
Standard of Care
Radiology
Reading
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Diagnostic radiology
  • Images
  • Intepretation
  • Observer performance
  • Quality assurance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Siegle, R. L., Baram, E. M., Reuter, S. R., Clarke, E. A., Lancaster, J. L., & McMahan, C. A. (1998). Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Academic Radiology, 5(3), 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(98)80277-8

Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. / Siegle, R. L.; Baram, E. M.; Reuter, S. R.; Clarke, Ewell A; Lancaster, Jack L; McMahan, C. A.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1998, p. 148-154.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Siegle, RL, Baram, EM, Reuter, SR, Clarke, EA, Lancaster, JL & McMahan, CA 1998, 'Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals', Academic Radiology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(98)80277-8
Siegle, R. L. ; Baram, E. M. ; Reuter, S. R. ; Clarke, Ewell A ; Lancaster, Jack L ; McMahan, C. A. / Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. In: Academic Radiology. 1998 ; Vol. 5, No. 3. pp. 148-154.
@article{738e0913082048c3ae96be494c04a3bc,
title = "Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals",
abstract = "Rationale and Objectives. Prospective studies of radiologists' interpretations of selected radiographs reported 20-40 years ago indicated error rates of 30{\%} and higher. The authors retrospectively evaluated the interpretations of groups of radiologists and determined a range of rates of disagreement in interpretation. Quality assessment or recredentialing may add to the importance of such studies in the future. Materials and Methods. Over a 7-year period, a team of radiologists reviewed imaging interpretations in the radiology departments of six community hospitals. Each review, which lasted about 3 days, included evaluation of the interpretations of a 3{\%}-4{\%} sample of the images read by the radiologists at these hospitals. Reading errors were quantitated and evaluated qualitatively. Results. In a review of over 11,000 images read by 35 radiologists, the authors found a 4.4{\%} mean rate of interpretation disagreement; only one radiologist had a mean rate above 8{\%}. Qualitative analysis of the interpretation errors revealed a mean rate of 3.0{\%} of errors that were considered to be below an acceptable standard of care. Radiologists whose errors included a relatively high proportion of false-positive findings tended to make relatively fewer total errors. Conclusion. Rates of disagreement for a broad range of studies that radiologists interpret in a community hospital setting appear to be far lower than earlier studies on selective radiographs indicated.",
keywords = "Diagnostic radiology, Images, Intepretation, Observer performance, Quality assurance",
author = "Siegle, {R. L.} and Baram, {E. M.} and Reuter, {S. R.} and Clarke, {Ewell A} and Lancaster, {Jack L} and McMahan, {C. A.}",
year = "1998",
doi = "10.1016/S1076-6332(98)80277-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "148--154",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals

AU - Siegle, R. L.

AU - Baram, E. M.

AU - Reuter, S. R.

AU - Clarke, Ewell A

AU - Lancaster, Jack L

AU - McMahan, C. A.

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - Rationale and Objectives. Prospective studies of radiologists' interpretations of selected radiographs reported 20-40 years ago indicated error rates of 30% and higher. The authors retrospectively evaluated the interpretations of groups of radiologists and determined a range of rates of disagreement in interpretation. Quality assessment or recredentialing may add to the importance of such studies in the future. Materials and Methods. Over a 7-year period, a team of radiologists reviewed imaging interpretations in the radiology departments of six community hospitals. Each review, which lasted about 3 days, included evaluation of the interpretations of a 3%-4% sample of the images read by the radiologists at these hospitals. Reading errors were quantitated and evaluated qualitatively. Results. In a review of over 11,000 images read by 35 radiologists, the authors found a 4.4% mean rate of interpretation disagreement; only one radiologist had a mean rate above 8%. Qualitative analysis of the interpretation errors revealed a mean rate of 3.0% of errors that were considered to be below an acceptable standard of care. Radiologists whose errors included a relatively high proportion of false-positive findings tended to make relatively fewer total errors. Conclusion. Rates of disagreement for a broad range of studies that radiologists interpret in a community hospital setting appear to be far lower than earlier studies on selective radiographs indicated.

AB - Rationale and Objectives. Prospective studies of radiologists' interpretations of selected radiographs reported 20-40 years ago indicated error rates of 30% and higher. The authors retrospectively evaluated the interpretations of groups of radiologists and determined a range of rates of disagreement in interpretation. Quality assessment or recredentialing may add to the importance of such studies in the future. Materials and Methods. Over a 7-year period, a team of radiologists reviewed imaging interpretations in the radiology departments of six community hospitals. Each review, which lasted about 3 days, included evaluation of the interpretations of a 3%-4% sample of the images read by the radiologists at these hospitals. Reading errors were quantitated and evaluated qualitatively. Results. In a review of over 11,000 images read by 35 radiologists, the authors found a 4.4% mean rate of interpretation disagreement; only one radiologist had a mean rate above 8%. Qualitative analysis of the interpretation errors revealed a mean rate of 3.0% of errors that were considered to be below an acceptable standard of care. Radiologists whose errors included a relatively high proportion of false-positive findings tended to make relatively fewer total errors. Conclusion. Rates of disagreement for a broad range of studies that radiologists interpret in a community hospital setting appear to be far lower than earlier studies on selective radiographs indicated.

KW - Diagnostic radiology

KW - Images

KW - Intepretation

KW - Observer performance

KW - Quality assurance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031877046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031877046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1076-6332(98)80277-8

DO - 10.1016/S1076-6332(98)80277-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 9522880

AN - SCOPUS:0031877046

VL - 5

SP - 148

EP - 154

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 3

ER -