PURPOSE: To assess the influence of experience and training on the proficiency in coronary CT angiography (CCTA) interpretation of practitioners with different levels of experience. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine radiologist and cardiologist observers with varying prior CCTA experience ranging from novice to expert independently analyzed two case series of 50 catheter-correlated CCTA studies for coronary artery stenosis (0%, ≤49%, 50-74%, 75-99%, or 100%). Results of the first case series were unblinded and presented along with catheter angiography results to each reader before proceeding to the second series. Diagnostic accuracy on a per-segment basis was compared for all readers and both case series, respectively. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients between CCTA and catheter angiography initially ranged between good (r=0.87) and poor (r=0.26), depending on reader experience, and significantly (p<0.05) improved in the second case series (range: r=0.42 to r=0.91). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly (p<0.05) higher for more experienced readers (range: 96.5-97.8%) as compared to less experienced observers (range: 90.7-93.6%). After completion of the second case series for less experienced readers sensitivity and PPV significantly (p<0.05) improved (range: 62.7-67.8%/51.4-84.1%), but still remained significantly (p<0.05) lower as compared to more experienced observers (range: 89.8-93.3%/80.6-93.3%). CONCLUSION: The level of experience appears to be a strong determinant of proficiency in CCTA interpretation. Limited one-time training improves proficiency in novice readers, but not to clinically satisfactory levels.
PURPOSE: To assess the influence of experience and training on the proficiency in coronary CT angiography (CCTA) interpretation of practitioners with different levels of experience. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine radiologist and cardiologist observers with varying prior CCTA experience ranging from novice to expert independently analyzed two case series of 50 catheter-correlated CCTA studies for coronary artery stenosis (0%, ≤49%, 50-74%, 75-99%, or 100%). Results of the first case series were unblinded and presented along with catheter angiography results to each reader before proceeding to the second series. Diagnostic accuracy on a per-segment basis was compared for all readers and both case series, respectively. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients between CCTA and catheter angiography initially ranged between good (r=0.87) and poor (r=0.26), depending on reader experience, and significantly (p<0.05) improved in the second case series (range: r=0.42 to r=0.91). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly (p<0.05) higher for more experienced readers (range: 96.5-97.8%) as compared to less experienced observers (range: 90.7-93.6%). After completion of the second case series for less experienced readers sensitivity and PPV significantly (p<0.05) improved (range: 62.7-67.8%/51.4-84.1%), but still remained significantly (p<0.05) lower as compared to more experienced observers (range: 89.8-93.3%/80.6-93.3%). CONCLUSION: The level of experience appears to be a strong determinant of proficiency in CCTA interpretation. Limited one-time training improves proficiency in novice readers, but not to clinically satisfactory levels.
Authors: Michael T Lu; Nandini M Meyersohn; Thomas Mayrhofer; Daniel O Bittner; Hamed Emami; Stefan B Puchner; Borek Foldyna; Martin E Mueller; Steven Hearne; Clifford Yang; Stephan Achenbach; Quynh A Truong; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Manesh R Patel; Maros Ferencik; Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthias Rief; Anisha Kranz; Lisa Hartmann; Robert Roehle; Michael Laule; Marc Dewey Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Borek Foldyna; Johannes Uhlig; Robin Gohmann; Christian Lücke; Thomas Mayrhofer; Lukas Lehmkuhl; Luigi Natale; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Joachim Lotz; Rodrigo Salgado; Marco Francone; Christian Loewe; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg; David Maintz; Pal Maurovich-Horvat; Holger Thiele; Udo Hoffmann; Matthias Gutberlet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Satoru Kishi; Tiago A Magalhães; Rodrigo J Cerci; Matthew B Matheson; Andrea Vavere; Yutaka Tanami; Pieter H Kitslaar; Richard T George; Jeffrey Brinker; Julie M Miller; Melvin E Clouse; Pedro A Lemos; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Johan H C Reiber; Carlos E Rochitte; Frank J Rybicki; Marcelo F Di Carli; Christopher Cox; Joao A C Lima; Armin Arbab-Zadeh Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2016-01-14
Authors: Moshrik Abd Alamir; Pamela Noack; Kristine H Jang; Jhanna A Moore; Roman Goldberg; Michael Poon Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 2.357
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