@article {Babiarz, author = {L.S. Babiarz and D.M. Yousem}, title = {Quality Control in Neuroradiology: Discrepancies in Image Interpretation among Academic Neuroradiologists}, year = {2011}, doi = {10.3174/ajnr.A2704}, publisher = {American Journal of Neuroradiology}, abstract = {SUMMARY: Prior studies have found a 3\%{\textendash}6\% clinically significant error rate in radiology practice. We set out to assess discrepancy rates between subspecialty-trained university-based neuroradiologists. Over 17 months, university neuroradiologists randomly reviewed 1000 studies and reports of previously read examinations of patients in whom follow-up studies were read. The discrepancies between the original and {\textquotedblleft}second opinion{\textquotedblright} reports were scored according to a 5-point scale: 1, no change; 2, clinically insignificant detection discrepancy; 3, clinically insignificant interpretation discrepancy; 4, clinically significant detection discrepancy; and 5, clinically significant interpretation discrepancy. Of the 1000 studies, 876 (87.6\%) showed agreements with the original report. The neuroradiology division had a 2.0\% (20/1000; 95\% CI, 1.1\%{\textendash}2.9\%) rate of clinically significant discrepancies involving 8 CTs and 12 MR images. Discrepancies were classified as vascular (n = 7), neoplastic (n = 9), congenital (n = 2), and artifacts (n = 2). Individual neuroradiologist{\textquoteright}s scores ranged from 0\% to 7.7\% {\textpm} 2.3\% (n = 18). Both CT and MR imaging studies had a discrepancy rate of 2.0\%. Our quality assessment study could serve as initial data before intervention as part of a PQI project.}, issn = {0195-6108}, URL = {https://www.ajnr.org/content/early/2011/10/27/ajnr.A2704}, eprint = {https://www.ajnr.org/content/early/2011/10/27/ajnr.A2704.full.pdf}, journal = {American Journal of Neuroradiology} }