OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of reader experience on variability, evaluation time and accuracy in the detection of coronary artery plaques with computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA). METHODS: Three independent, blinded readers with three different experience levels twice labelled 50 retrospectively electrocardiography (ECG)-gated contrast-enhanced dual-source CTCA data sets (15 female, age 67.3 +/- 10.4 years, range 46-86 years) indicating the presence or absence of coronary plaques. The evaluation times for the readings were recorded. Intra- and interobserver variability expressed as kappa statistics and sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were calculated for plaque detection, with a consensus reading of the three readers taken as the standard of reference. A bootstrap method was applied in the statistical analysis to account for clustering. RESULTS: Significant correlations were found between reader experience and, respectively, evaluation times (r = -0.59, p < 0.05) and intraobserver variability (r = 0.73, p < 0.05). The evaluation time significantly differed among the readers (p < 0.05). The observer variability for plaque detection, compared with the consensus, varied between kappa = 0.582 and kappa = 0.802. Variability of plaque detection was significantly smaller (p < 0.05) and more accurate (p < 0.05) for the most experienced reader. CONCLUSION: Reader experience significantly correlated with observer variability, evaluation time and accuracy of coronary plaque detection at CTCA.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of reader experience on variability, evaluation time and accuracy in the detection of coronary artery plaques with computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA). METHODS: Three independent, blinded readers with three different experience levels twice labelled 50 retrospectively electrocardiography (ECG)-gated contrast-enhanced dual-source CTCA data sets (15 female, age 67.3 +/- 10.4 years, range 46-86 years) indicating the presence or absence of coronary plaques. The evaluation times for the readings were recorded. Intra- and interobserver variability expressed as kappa statistics and sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were calculated for plaque detection, with a consensus reading of the three readers taken as the standard of reference. A bootstrap method was applied in the statistical analysis to account for clustering. RESULTS: Significant correlations were found between reader experience and, respectively, evaluation times (r = -0.59, p < 0.05) and intraobserver variability (r = 0.73, p < 0.05). The evaluation time significantly differed among the readers (p < 0.05). The observer variability for plaque detection, compared with the consensus, varied between kappa = 0.582 and kappa = 0.802. Variability of plaque detection was significantly smaller (p < 0.05) and more accurate (p < 0.05) for the most experienced reader. CONCLUSION: Reader experience significantly correlated with observer variability, evaluation time and accuracy of coronary plaque detection at CTCA.
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sebastian Leschka; Hans Scheffel; Lotus Desbiolles; Andre Plass; Oliver Gaemperli; Ines Valenta; Lars Husmann; Thomas G Flohr; Michele Genoni; Borut Marincek; Philipp A Kaufmann; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Stephan Achenbach; Daniel S Berman; Zahi A Fayad; Michael Poon; Allen J Taylor; Barry F Uretsky; Kim Allan Williams Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jacob M van Werkhoven; Joanne D Schuijf; Oliver Gaemperli; J Wouter Jukema; Eric Boersma; William Wijns; Paul Stolzmann; Hatem Alkadhi; Ines Valenta; Marcel P M Stokkel; Lucia J Kroft; Albert de Roos; Gabija Pundziute; Arthur Scholte; Ernst E van der Wall; Philipp A Kaufmann; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Masato Otsuka; Nico Bruining; Niels C Van Pelt; Nico R Mollet; Jurgen M R Ligthart; Eleni Vourvouri; Ronald Hamers; Peter De Jaegere; William Wijns; Ron T Van Domburg; Gregg W Stone; Susan Veldhof; Stefan Verheye; Dariusz Dudek; Patrick W Serruys; Gabriel P Krestin; Pim J De Feyter Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Stefan C Saur; Philippe C Cattin; Lotus Desbiolles; Thomas J Fuchs; Gábor Székely; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Christoph R Becker; Konstantin Nikolaou; Michael Muders; Gregor Babaryka; Alexander Crispin; U Joseph Schoepf; Udo Loehrs; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Annika Schuhbäck; Mohamed Marwan; Sören Gauss; Gerd Muschiol; Dieter Ropers; Christian Schneider; Michael Lell; Johannes Rixe; Christian Hamm; Werner G Daniel; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: L La Grutta; M Galia; G Gentile; G Lo Re; E Grassedonio; F Coppolino; E Maffei; E Maresi; A Lo Casto; F Cademartiri; M Midiri Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Kristian Altern Øvrehus; Mohamed Marwan; Hans Erik Bøtker; Stephan Achenbach; Bjarne Linde Nørgaard Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-05-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Wing Keung Cheung; Robert Bell; Arjun Nair; Leon J Menezes; Riyaz Patel; Simon Wan; Kacy Chou; Jiahang Chen; Ryo Torii; Rhodri H Davies; James C Moon; Daniel C Alexander; Joseph Jacob Journal: IEEE Access Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Xianjun Han; Nan Luo; Lixue Xu; Jiaxin Cao; Ning Guo; Yi He; Min Hong; Xibin Jia; Zhenchang Wang; Zhenghan Yang Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Aaron M Spring; Daniel J Pittman; Yahya Aghakhani; Jeffrey Jirsch; Neelan Pillay; Luis E Bello-Espinosa; Colin Josephson; Paolo Federico Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 4.003