Literature DB >> 19651707

Reduction of perception error by double reporting of minimal preparation CT colon.

R Murphy1, A Slater, R Uberoi, H Bungay, C Ferrett.   

Abstract

Minimal preparation CT colon (MPCTC) is a useful test for frail elderly patients, who tolerate full bowel preparation poorly, and has the potential advantage of identifying extra-colonic pathology. Double reporting has been shown to reduce perception errors in a variety of radiological investigations, and we sought to determine its usefulness for MPCTC. A prospective consecutive cohort of 186 patients undergoing MPCTC for lower gastrointestinal symptoms was double reported. Radiologists were blinded to each report. Data for each report were divided into colonic and extra-colonic findings, with the latter being graded as clinically relevant or irrelevant. Discrepancies between the two reports were identified. A positive colonic lesion was defined as one where direct endoscopic visualisation was recommended. A clinically relevant extra-colonic lesion was defined as one that could impact on future patient management. 13% (24/186) of patients had a significant colonic lesion; 7 of these were identified only by 1 observer, although only 1 was confirmed endoscopically to be cancer. The positive predictive value for colon cancer was 69% for single reporting and 54.5% for double reporting. There were 67 clinically relevant extra-colonic lesions, and 25 of these were reported only by only 1 observer. In conclusion, double reporting found one extra-colonic cancer, but at the expense of five unnecessary endoscopic procedures. This seems a reasonable trade-off and we would therefore recommend double reporting. However, implementation would have a significant impact on manpower and service delivery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19651707      PMCID: PMC3473446          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/65634575

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  17 in total

1.  Utility of intravenously administered contrast material at CT colonography.

Authors:  M M Morrin; R J Farrell; J B Kruskal; K Reynolds; J B McGee; V Raptopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  CT screening for lung cancer: not ready for routine practice.

Authors:  E F Patz; W C Black; P C Goodman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population.

Authors:  Thomas M Gluecker; C Daniel Johnson; Lynn A Wilson; Robert L Maccarty; Timothy J Welch; David J Vanness; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Minimal-preparation CT colon in detection of colonic cancer, the Oxford experience.

Authors:  Arul Ganeshan; Sara Upponi; Raman Uberoi; Horace D'Costa; Carol Picking; Helen Bungay
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 10.668

Review 5.  Incidental lesions found on CT colonography: their nature and frequency.

Authors:  T Xiong; M Richardson; R Woodroffe; S Halligan; D Morton; R J Lilford
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: is there added value?

Authors:  G M Briggs; P A Flynn; M Worthington; I Rennie; C S McKinstry
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2008-04-22       Impact factor: 2.350

7.  Just how valuable is double reporting in screening mammography?

Authors:  E R Denton; S Field
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.350

8.  Evaluation of CT in identifying colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient.

Authors:  C S Ng; T C Doyle; E M Pinto; H M Courtney; R K Bull; A T Prevost; G A Campbell; A H Freeman; A K Dixon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-05-08       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Detection of colorectal carcinoma on double contrast barium enema when double reporting is routinely performed: an audit of current practice.

Authors:  A Leslie; J P Virjee
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.350

10.  Extracolonic findings in patients undergoing abdomino-pelvic CT for suspected colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient.

Authors:  C S Ng; T C Doyle; H M Courtney; G A Campbell; A H Freeman; A K Dixon
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  6 in total

1.  Utility of contemporaneous dual read in the setting of emergency teleradiology reporting.

Authors:  Anjali Agrawal; D B Koundinya; Jayadeepa Srinivas Raju; Anurag Agrawal; Arjun Kalyanpur
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2016-11-18

2.  European survey of imaging in non-accidental injury demonstrates a need for a consensus protocol.

Authors:  Oliver S Hulson; Rick R van Rijn; Amaka C Offiah
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2014-07-05

3.  Double-read of skeletal surveys in suspected non-accidental trauma: what we learned.

Authors:  Boaz Karmazyn; Elise M Miller; Sara E Lay; James M Massey; Matthew R Wanner; Megan B Marine; S Gregory Jennings; Fangqian Ouyang; Roberta A Hibbard
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-02-24

4.  CT morphology and morphometry of the normal adult coccyx.

Authors:  Jason T K Woon; Vivekanandan Perumal; Jean-Yves Maigne; Mark D Stringer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Is There a Role of Double Reporting and CT Pelvis for Lung Cancer Staging?

Authors:  Rajesh Botchu; Ganesh Retnasingam; Vimal Raj; Mohammad Ali Husainy; George Jakanani; Balaji Rao; James Entwisle
Journal:  World J Oncol       Date:  2012-04-23

Review 6.  Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-03-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.