Integration of Peer Review in PACS Results in a Marked Increase in the Discrepancies Reported.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this article is to assess the impact of integrating peer review in PACS on the reporting of discrepancies. Our hypothesis is that a PACS-integrated machine-randomized and semiblinded peer review tool leads to an increase in discrepancies reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A PACS tool was implemented to prompt radiologists to perform peer review of prior comparison studies in a randomized fashion. The reviewed radiologist's name was omitted from the prior report in PACS. Before this implementation, radiologists entered peer reviews directly on the RADPEER website. Three academic subspecialty sections comprising 24 radiologists adopted the tool (adopters group). Three sections comprising 14 radiologists did not adopt the tool (nonadopters group). Peer review submissions were analyzed for 4 months before and 4 months after the implementation. The mean rate of significant discrepancies (RADPEER score 2b or higher) reported per radiologist was calculated and the discrepancy rates of the periods before and after the implementation were compared. RESULTS. The mean significant discrepancy rate reported per radiologist in the adopters group increased from 0.19% ± 0.46% (SD) before the implementation to 0.93% ± 1.45% after implementation (p = 0.01). No significant discrepancies were reported by the nonadopters group in either period. CONCLUSION. In this single institutional retrospective analysis, integrating peer review in PACS resulted in a fivefold increase in reported significant discrepancies. These results suggest that peer review data are influenced by the design of the tool used including PACS integration, randomization, and blinding.