Evaluation of Radiologist Interpretive Performance Using Blinded Reads by Multiple External Readers

Abstract

The results of our study demonstrate a wide range of interpretation, with wider ranges observed in more complex cases and with vague clinical complaints. Comparison to the primary reader required the use of aggregate analysis and an agreement percentage cutoff to minimize bias and the limitations of this type of study. An intensive evaluation of radiologist performance such as this could be considered in various settings such as a quality assurance program, intense scrutiny of an individual radiologist whether competency is in question, or for medicolegal purpose to ascertain standard of care.

Medicolegal Reform

“…Articles have often emphasized that a critical component of physician interaction with patients to minimize the likelihood of legal cases, even when health care delivery to the patient has been fl awed, is communication and accountability [31][32][33][34] . A recent approach advocated that health care systems should employ in dealing with patients and health care mistakes includes three elements: acknowledgment, apology, and compensation [15,16,35] .…”

“…In a study preceding the above-described study, Ryan et al [16] addressed the subject of what should be considered a "true" fi nding, if there is no pathology specimens obtained or surgery performed immediately after the imaging study. We proposed an imaging "gold standard," where if a fi nding was observed by 80% of the external readers then it should be considered a "true fi nding."…”

Comparability of size measurements of the pancreas in magnetic resonance imaging and transabdominal ultrasound

“…They produce cross‐sectional images usually in transversal orientation. Although operator effects have been demonstrated for these techniques as well, they are less pronounced than in US, so that MRI measurements are often considered to be more reliable (Ryan, Semelka, Molina, Yonkers, & Vaidean, ; van Vliet et al, ). Compared to CT, MRI provides better soft tissue contrast and in combination with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) it can be used for evaluating of the pancreatic duct (Bulow et al, ; Mensel et al, ).…”

“…They produce cross-sectional images usually in transversal orientation. Although operator effects have been demonstrated for these techniques as well, they are less pronounced than in US, so that MRI measurements are often considered to be more reliable (Ryan, Semelka, Molina, Yonkers, & Vaidean, 2010;van Vliet et al, 2008).…”