Literature DB >> 16636802

CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting.

David Burling1, Steve Halligan, Douglas G Altman, Wendy Atkin, Clive Bartram, Helen Fenlon, Andrea Laghi, Jaap Stoker, Stuart Taylor, Roger Frost, Guido Dessey, Melinda De Villiers, Jasper Florie, Shane Foley, Lesley Honeyfield, Riccardo Iannaccone, Teresa Gallo, Clive Kay, Philippe Lefere, Andrew Lowe, Filipo Mangiapane, Jesse Marrannes, Emmanuele Neri, Giulia Nieddu, David Nicholson, Alan O'Hare, Sante Ori, Benedetta Politi, Martin Poulus, Daniele Regge, Lisa Renaut, Velauthan Rudralingham, Saverio Signoretta, Paola Vagli, Victor Van der Hulst, Jane Williams-Butt.   

Abstract

Our purpose was to assess the effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings on interpretation time for CT colonography. Nine radiologists (experienced in CT colonography); nine radiologists and ten technicians (both groups trained using 50 validated examinations) read 40 cases (50% abnormal) under controlled conditions. Individual interpretation times for each case were recorded, and differences between groups determined. Multi-level linear regression was used to investigate effect of scan category (normal or abnormal) and observer fatigue on interpretation times. Experienced radiologists (mean time 10.9 min, SD 5.2) reported significantly faster than less experienced radiologists and technicians; odds ratios of reporting times 1.4 (CI 1.1, 1.8) and 1.6 (1.3, 2.0), respectively (P<or=0.001). Experienced and less-experienced radiologists took longer to report abnormal cases; ratio 1.2 (CI 1.1,1.4, P<0.001) and 1.2 (1.0, 1.3, P=0.03), respectively. All groups took 70% as long to report the final five cases as they did with an initial five; ratio 0.7 (CI 0.6 to 0.8), P<0.001. For technicians only, accuracy increased with longer reporting times (P=0.04). Experienced radiologists report faster than do less-experienced observers and proportionally spend less time interpreting normal cases. Technicians who report more slowly are more accurate. All groups reported faster as the study period progressed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16636802     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0190-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  6 in total

1.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; David Burling; Simon Morley; Paul Bassett; Wendy Atkin; Clive I Bartram
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Elizabeth G McFarland; Thomas K Pilgram; James A Brink; Ronan A McDermott; Cynthia V Santillan; Patrick W Brady; Jay P Heiken; Dennis M Balfe; Leonard B Weinstock; Erik P Thyssen; Benjamin Littenberg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison.

Authors:  D C Rockey; E Paulson; D Niedzwiecki; W Davis; H B Bosworth; L Sanders; J Yee; J Henderson; P Hatten; S Burdick; A Sanyal; D T Rubin; M Sterling; G Akerkar; M S Bhutani; K Binmoeller; J Garvie; E J Bini; K McQuaid; W L Foster; W M Thompson; A Dachman; R Halvorsen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jan 22-28       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography.

Authors:  Thomas Gluecker; Jean-Yves Meuwly; Paul Pescatore; Pierre Schnyder; Joachim Delarive; Philippe Jornod; Reto Meuli; Gian Dorta
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-02-09       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting.

Authors:  C Daniel Johnson; Alicia Y Toledano; Benjamin A Herman; Abraham H Dachman; Elizabeth G McFarland; Matthew A Barish; James A Brink; Randy D Ernst; Joel G Fletcher; Robert A Halvorsen; Amy K Hara; Kenneth D Hopper; Robert E Koehler; David S k Lu; Michael Macari; Robert L Maccarty; Frank H Miller; Martina Morrin; Erik K Paulson; Judy Yee; Michael Zalis
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 22.682

  6 in total
  11 in total

1.  Diagnostic accuracy of translucency rendering to differentiate polyps from pseudopolyps at 3D endoluminal CT colonography: a feasibility study.

Authors:  A Guerrisi; D Marin; A Laghi; M Di Martino; F Iafrate; R Iannaccone; C Catalano; R Passariello
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Computer assisted detection software for CT colonography: effect of sphericity filter on performance characteristics for patients with and without fecal tagging.

Authors:  Jamshid Dehmeshki; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor; Mary E Roddie; Justine McQuillan; Lesley Honeyfield; Hamdan Amin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-10-05       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  CT colonography: Project of High National Interest No. 2005062137 of the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR).

Authors:  E Neri; A Laghi; D Regge; P Sacco; T Gallo; F Turini; E Talini; R Ferrari; M Mellaro; M Rengo; S Marchi; D Caramella; C Bartolozzi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-10-25       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  The Medical Image Perception Society update on key issues for image perception research.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Comparison of sensitivity of lung nodule detection between radiologists and technologists on low-dose CT lung cancer screening images.

Authors:  R Kakinuma; K Ashizawa; T Kobayashi; A Fukushima; H Hayashi; T Kondo; M Machida; M Matsusako; K Minami; K Oikado; M Okuda; S Takamatsu; M Sugawara; S Gomi; Y Muramatsu; K Hanai; Y Muramatsu; M Kaneko; R Tsuchiya; N Moriyama
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  The Effects of Fatigue From Overnight Shifts on Radiology Search Patterns and Diagnostic Performance.

Authors:  Tarek N Hanna; Matthew E Zygmont; Ryan Peterson; David Theriot; Haris Shekhani; Jamlik-Omari Johnson; Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

Authors:  Ayso H de Vries; Sebastiaan Jensch; Marjolein H Liedenbaum; Jasper Florie; Chung Y Nio; Roel Truyen; Shandra Bipat; Evelien Dekker; Paul Fockens; Lubbertus C Baak; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-11-04       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Computer-aided detection in CT colonography: initial clinical experience using a prototype system.

Authors:  A Graser; F T Kolligs; T Mang; C Schaefer; S Geisbüsch; M F Reiser; C R Becker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-16       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Computed tomography colonography - reasons for different and false results.

Authors:  Małgorzata Rudzińska; Janusz Rudziński; Krzysztof Leksowski
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2010-07

10.  CT colonography with reduced bowel preparation after incomplete colonoscopy in the elderly.

Authors:  F Iafrate; C Hassan; A Zullo; A Stagnitti; R Ferrari; A Spagnuolo; A Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 7.034

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.