Table 4

Comparison of scoring in current study to published data
Author O’Keeffe Siegle* Borgstede Soffa** Jackson Swanson Bender
Reference Current 27 4 5 3 19 22
Year 2013 1998 2004 2004 2009 2012 2012
Grades
0 0.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA
1 99.1 95.6 96.3 96.5 97.1 96.2 96.5
2 0.1 1.4 2.9 NA 2.5 3.6 NA
3 0.5 NA NA NA 0.3 0.2 NA
4 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1 0.0 NA
Non-discrepant (0–1) 99.3 95.6 96.3 96.5 97.1 96.2 96.5
Concordant (0–2) 99.4 97.0 99.2 NA 99.6 99.8 NA
Discrepant (2–4) 0.7 4.4 3.7 3.5 2.9 3.8 3.5
Clinically Significant Discrepancy(3–4) 0.6 3.0 0.8 N/A 0.4 0.2 NA

NA not available.

Values are percentage of cases in each scoring category.

*Siegle et al. used a slightly different scoring system, but it has been accepted by RADPEER; values in the table for this paper are as reported in Borgstede [4].

**Soffa et al. used a 4-point rating system with nominally different definitions of each score, but they are very close to the RADPEER system [4,5].

O’Keeffe et al.

O’Keeffe et al. BMC Medical Imaging 2013 13:19   doi:10.1186/1471-2342-13-19

Open Data