Geddes D M, Green M, Emerson P A
Thorax. 1978 Apr;33(2):257-60. doi: 10.1136/thx.33.2.257.
The numerical results of 60 sets of pulmonary function tests were submitted to five consultant chest physicians for independent reporting. The chest physicians' reports were compared with the reports generated by the on-line computer reporting system in routine use in the pulmonary function laboratory at Westminster Hospital. There was good agreement between the reports of the chest physicians among themselves and with the computer. The individual reports were compared with the consensus opinions of the physicians and the computer. The computer's decisions differed from the consensus opinion in 4.6% of instances. The comparable figures for the five physicians were respectively 2.9%, 2.9%, 2.9%, 4.0%, and 4.6%. Decisions differing from the consensus were due to mistakes or actual sustained disagreements of opinion. The physicians made more mistakes than the computer even though they were performing under test conditions. They made up for this, however, by producing fewer genuine disagreements from the consensus opinions. It is concluded that in routine day-to-day practice the computer report will be as consistently useful as the chest physicians' reports and more immediately available.
60组肺功能测试的数值结果提交给了五位胸科顾问医师，以供他们独立出具报告。这些胸科医师的报告与威斯敏斯特医院肺功能实验室日常使用的在线计算机报告系统生成的报告进行了比较。胸科医师之间的报告以及与计算机报告之间都有很好的一致性。将个体报告与医师和计算机的共识意见进行了比较。计算机的判定在4.6%的情况下与共识意见不同。五位医师的可比数据分别为2.9%、2.9%、2.9%、4.0%和4.6%。与共识不同的判定是由于错误或实际存在的持续意见分歧。尽管医师们是在测试条件下进行工作，但他们犯的错误比计算机更多。然而，他们通过减少与共识意见的真正分歧来弥补这一点。得出的结论是，在日常常规实践中，计算机报告将与胸科医师的报告一样始终有用，并且能更即时地获取。
