Literature DB >> 23103185

Unbiased review of digital diagnostic images in practice: informatics prototype and pilot study.

Anthony F Fotenos1, Nabile M Safdar, Paul G Nagy, Reuben Mezrich, Jonathan S Lewin.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Clinical and contextual information associated with images may influence how radiologists draw diagnostic inferences, highlighting the need to control multiple sources of bias in the methodologic design of investigations involving radiologic interpretation. In the past, manual control methods to mask review films presented in practice have been used to reduce potential interpretive bias associated with differences between viewing images for patient care and reviewing images for the purposes of research, education, and quality improvement. These manual precedents from the film era raise the question whether similar methods to reduce bias can be implemented in the modern digital environment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prototype application, CreateAPatient, was built for masking review case presentations within one institution's production radiology information system and picture archiving and communication system. To test whether CreateAPatient could be used to mask review images presented in practice, six board-certified radiologists participated in a pilot study. During pilot testing, seven digital chest radiographs, known to contain lung nodules and associated with fictitious patient identifiers, were mixed into the routine workloads of the participating radiologists while they covered general evening call shifts. The aim was to test whether it was possible to mask the presentation of these review cases, both by probing the interpreting radiologists to report detection and by conducting a forced-choice experiment on a separate cohort of 20 radiologists and information technology professionals.
RESULTS: None of the participating radiologists reported awareness of review activity, and forced-choice detection was less than predicted at chance, suggesting that radiologists were effectively blinded. In addition, no evidence was identified of review reports unsafely propagating beyond their intended scope or otherwise interfering with patient care, despite integration of these records within production electronic work flow systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Information technology can facilitate the design of unbiased methods involving professional review of digital diagnostic images.
Copyright © 2013 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23103185      PMCID: PMC3580150          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.09.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  15 in total

1.  Objective determination of standard of care: use of blind readings by external radiologists.

Authors:  Richard C Semelka; Andrew F Ryan; Shannon Yonkers; Larissa Braga
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Todd S Horowitz; Michael J Van Wert; Naomi M Kenner; Skyler S Place; Nour Kibbi
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2007-11

3.  Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine.

Authors:  T J Kaptchuk
Journal:  Bull Hist Med       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.314

4.  A blind review and an informed review of interval breast cancer cases in the Limburg screening programme, the Netherlands.

Authors:  J M de Rijke; L J Schouten; J L Schreutelkamp; I Jochem; A L Verbeek
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Bedrich Vitak; Hege Wang; Steinar Thoresen; Liv Eriksen; Hilde Bjørndal; Audun Braaten; Nils Bjurstam
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Fielding incognito standardised patients as 'known' patients in a controlled trial in general practice.

Authors:  Bas H J Maiburg; Jan-Joost E Rethans; Ingrid M van Erk; Lisbeth M H Mathus-Vliegen; Jan W van Ree
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.251

7.  Residents' asthma communication skills in announced versus unannounced standardized patient exercises.

Authors:  Philip O Ozuah; Marina Reznik
Journal:  Ambul Pediatr       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec

8.  On being sane in insane places.

Authors:  D L Rosenhan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-01-19       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 9.  Unannounced standardised patients in real practice: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Jan-Joost Rethans; Simone Gorter; Lonneke Bokken; Linda Morrison
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 6.251

10.  A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon; Marilyn J Borugian; Linda J Warren Burhenne
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-09-11       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.