Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology.

Maurer, Martin H.; Brönnimann, Michael; Schroeder, Christophe; Ghadamgahi, Ehssan; Streitparth, Florian; Heverhagen, Johannes T.; Leichtle, Alexander; de Bucourt, Maximilian; Meyl, Tobias Philipp (2021). Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. RöFo. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren, 193(2), pp. 160-167. Thieme 10.1055/a-1178-1113

[img] Text
Time_Maurer.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (319kB) | Request a copy


To estimate the human resources required for a retrospective quality review of different percentages of all routine diagnostic procedures in the Department of Radiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland.


Three board-certified radiologists retrospectively evaluated the quality of the radiological reports of a total of 150 examinations (5 different examination types: abdominal CT, chest CT, mammography, conventional X-ray images and abdominal MRI). Each report was assigned a RADPEER score of 1 to 3 (score 1: concur with previous interpretation; score 2: discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made; score 3: discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time). The time (in seconds, s) required for each review was documented and compared. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to calculate the total workload for reviewing different percentages of the total annual reporting volume of the clinic.


Among the total of 450 reviews analyzed, 91.1 % (410/450) were assigned a score of 1 and 8.9 % (40/450) were assigned scores of 2 or 3. The average time (in seconds) required for a peer review was 60.4 s (min. 5 s, max. 245 s). The reviewer with the greatest clinical experience needed significantly less time for reviewing the reports than the two reviewers with less clinical expertise (p < 0.05). Average review times were longer for discrepant ratings with a score of 2 or 3 (p < 0.05). The total time requirement calculated for reviewing all 5 types of examination for one year would be more than 1200 working hours.


A retrospective peer review of reports of radiological examinations using the RADPEER system requires considerable human resources. However, to improve quality, it seems feasible to peer review at least a portion of the total yearly reporting volume.


· A systematic retrospective assessment of the content of radiological reports using the RADPEER system involves high personnel costs.. · The retrospective assessment of all reports of a clinic or practice seems unrealistic due to the lack of highly specialized personnel.. · At least part of all reports should be reviewed with the aim of improving the quality of reports..


· Maurer MH, Brönnimann M, Schroeder C et al. Time Requirement and Feasibility of a Systematic Quality Peer Review of Reporting in Radiology. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; DOI: 10.1055/a-1178-1113.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)


04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Haematology, Oncology, Infectious Diseases, Laboratory Medicine and Hospital Pharmacy (DOLS) > Institute of Clinical Chemistry
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology and Nuclear Medicine (DRNN) > Institute of Diagnostic, Interventional and Paediatric Radiology

UniBE Contributor:

Maurer, Martin; Brönnimann, Michael; Schroeder, Christophe; Heverhagen, Johannes and Leichtle, Alexander Benedikt


600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health








Maria de Fatima Henriques Bernardo

Date Deposited:

23 Jul 2020 10:00

Last Modified:

31 Jan 2021 01:31

Publisher DOI:


PubMed ID:






Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback