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].