OBJECTIVE: Two-thirds of the US population is overweight or obese. Sedentary lifestyles and occupations are one factor in the development of obesity. Methods to help reduce sedentary work environments may help reduce obesity. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using a walking workstation during computed tomographic image interpretation. METHODS: Two radiologists reinterpreted 100 clinical computed tomographic examinations they had previously interpreted, each while walking at 1 mph on a treadmill using an electronic workstation. Ten cases were reviewed per session. The time period between the initial conventional interpretations and the reinterpretations was greater than one year, to reduce recall bias. Discrepant findings were ranked according to a classification system based on clinical importance on a scale ranging from 1 to 6. Discrepant findings classified as greater than or equal to 3 were considered significant. Detection rates for the initial interpretations and reinterpretations were determined for each reviewer and compared using a paired t-test. RESULTS: A total of 1,582 findings were reported (825 by reviewer 1 and 757 by reviewer 2). There were 459 findings with clinical importance of 3 or higher. For reviewer 1 (91 cases of at least one important finding), the mean detection rates were 99.0% for the walking technique and 88.9% for the conventional interpretations (P = .0003). For reviewer 2 (89 cases with at least one important finding) the mean detection rates were 99.1% for the walking technique and 81.3% for the conventional interpretations (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The use of a walking workstation for the interpretation of cross-sectional images is feasible. Further studies are needed to assess the potential impact on diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: Two-thirds of the US population is overweight or obese. Sedentary lifestyles and occupations are one factor in the development of obesity. Methods to help reduce sedentary work environments may help reduce obesity. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using a walking workstation during computed tomographic image interpretation. METHODS: Two radiologists reinterpreted 100 clinical computed tomographic examinations they had previously interpreted, each while walking at 1 mph on a treadmill using an electronic workstation. Ten cases were reviewed per session. The time period between the initial conventional interpretations and the reinterpretations was greater than one year, to reduce recall bias. Discrepant findings were ranked according to a classification system based on clinical importance on a scale ranging from 1 to 6. Discrepant findings classified as greater than or equal to 3 were considered significant. Detection rates for the initial interpretations and reinterpretations were determined for each reviewer and compared using a paired t-test. RESULTS: A total of 1,582 findings were reported (825 by reviewer 1 and 757 by reviewer 2). There were 459 findings with clinical importance of 3 or higher. For reviewer 1 (91 cases of at least one important finding), the mean detection rates were 99.0% for the walking technique and 88.9% for the conventional interpretations (P = .0003). For reviewer 2 (89 cases with at least one important finding) the mean detection rates were 99.1% for the walking technique and 81.3% for the conventional interpretations (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The use of a walking workstation for the interpretation of cross-sectional images is feasible. Further studies are needed to assess the potential impact on diagnostic accuracy.