Table 4.

Results relevant to reporting confidence and timeliness.

Study	Outcome measure	Significance test	Significance level	P‐value	Authors’ conclusions
Doshi et al, 2017 30	Reporting confidence	Paired Wilcoxon test	Not reported	P < 0.001 for both reader 1 and reader 2	Interpretation confidence significantly greater when patient questionnaire accessed (reader 1: 4.8 ± 0.6 vs. 4.0 ± 0.5; reader 2: 4.9 ± 0.3 vs. 4.7 ± 0.5, P < 0.001)
Sarwar et al, 2014 16	Reporting confidence	Paired Student's t‐test, Wilcoxon signed‐rank test	0.05	Improved degree of confidence from 8.1 to 8.4 (P < 0.0001)	When radiologists are provided with a graphic, degree of confidence is increased. This may lead to a decrease in hedging, vague reports and unnecessary follow‐up imaging.
Berbaum et al, 1988 25	Reporting confidence	ROC curve, ANOVA, paired t‐test	Not reported	Greater confidence in rating abnormal cases, P = 0.031	Localisation clues (within clinical information) improve the ability of radiologists to detect fractures in the trauma patient.
Sarwar et al, 2014 16	Reporting timeliness	Paired Student's t‐test and Wilcoxon signed‐rank test	0.05	Decreased mean interpretation time 6% (P = 0.006)	Radiologists require less time for interpretation when the patient's clinical history is complemented by a graphic highlighting the site of maximal pain
Cooperstein et al, 1990 24	Reporting timeliness	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Time needed to display, review, interpret and rate the cases varied only slightly between the two reading environments (with/without clinical information)