Literature DB >> 26363824

Satisfaction of Search in Chest Radiography 2015.

Kevin S Berbaum1, Elizabeth A Krupinski2, Kevin M Schartz3, Robert T Caldwell3, Mark T Madsen3, Seung Hur2, Archana T Laroia3, Brad H Thompson3, Brian F Mullan3, Edmund A Franken3.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Two decades have passed since the publication of laboratory studies of satisfaction of search (SOS) in chest radiography. Those studies were performed using film. The current investigation tests for SOS effects in computed radiography of the chest.
METHODS: Sixty-four chest computed radiographs half demonstrating various "test" abnormalities were read twice by 20 radiologists, once with and once without the addition of a simulated pulmonary nodule. Receiver-operating characteristic detection accuracy and decision thresholds were analyzed to study the effects of adding the nodule on detecting the test abnormalities. Results of previous studies were reanalyzed using similar modern techniques.
RESULTS: In the present study, adding nodules did not influence detection accuracy for the other abnormalities (P = .93), but did induce a reluctance to report them (P < .001). Adding nodules did not affect inspection time (P = .58) so the reluctance to report was not associated with reduced search. Reanalysis revealed a similar decision threshold shift that had not been recognized in the early studies of SOS in chest radiography (P < .01) in addition to reduced detection accuracy (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: The nature of SOS in chest radiography has changed, but it is not clear why. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: SOS may be changing as a function of changes in radiology education and practice.
Copyright © 2015 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic Radiology; images; interpretation; observer performance; quality assurance

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26363824      PMCID: PMC4609286          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.07.011

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


  14 in total

1.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

2.  Time course of satisfaction of search.

Authors:  K S Berbaum; E A Franken; D D Dorfman; S A Rooholamini; C E Coffman; S H Cornell; A H Cragg; J R Galvin; H Honda; S C Kao
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Kevin S Berbaum; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Cause of satisfaction of search effects in contrast studies of the abdomen.

Authors:  K S Berbaum; E A Franken; D D Dorfman; E M Miller; E A Krupinski; K Kreinbring; R T Caldwell; C H Lu
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Simulation of subtle lung nodules in projection chest radiography.

Authors:  E Samei; M J Flynn; W R Eyler
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Y Jiang; C E Metz; R M Nishikawa
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  K S Berbaum; E A Franken; D D Dorfman; S A Rooholamini; M H Kathol; T J Barloon; F M Behlke; Y Sato; C H Lu; G Y el-Khoury
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 6.016

8.  Satisfaction of search in the detection of plain-film abnormalities in abdominal contrast studies.

Authors:  E A Franken; K S Berbaum; C H Lu; S Kannam; D D Dorfman; N G Warnock; T M Simonson; R E Pelsang
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Multiple diagnostic task performance in CT examination of the chest.

Authors:  K M Schartz; K S Berbaum; M T Madsen; B H Thompson; B F Mullan; R T Caldwell; B Hammett; A N Ellingson; E A Franken
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Satisfaction of search from detection of pulmonary nodules in computed tomography of the chest.

Authors:  Kevin S Berbaum; Kevin M Schartz; Robert T Caldwell; Mark T Madsen; Brad H Thompson; Brian F Mullan; Andrew N Ellingson; Edmund A Franken
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  10 in total

1.  Routine clinical knee MR reports: comparison of diagnostic performance at 1.5 T and 3.0 T for assessment of the articular cartilage.

Authors:  Jacob C Mandell; Jeffrey A Rhodes; Nehal Shah; Glenn C Gaviola; Andreas H Gomoll; Stacy E Smith
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Cognitive processing differences of experts and novices when correlating anatomy and cross-sectional imaging.

Authors:  Lonie R Salkowski; Rosemary Russ
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-05-18

4.  The Impact of Fatigue on Satisfaction of Search in Chest Radiography.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Kevin S Berbaum; Kevin M Schartz; Robert T Caldwell; Mark T Madsen
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Effect of fatigue on reading computed tomography examination of the multiply injured patient.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Kevin M Schartz; Mark S Van Tassell; Mark T Madsen; Robert T Caldwell; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-09-29

Review 6.  Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-02-05

7.  Finding cancer in mammograms: if you know it's there, do you know where?

Authors:  Ann J Carrigan; Susan G Wardle; Anina N Rich
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2018-04-18

Review 8.  Using Eye Movements to Understand how Security Screeners Search for Threats in X-Ray Baggage.

Authors:  Nick Donnelly; Alex Muhl-Richardson; Hayward J Godwin; Kyle R Cave
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-04

9.  Multicenter Multireader Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Attention Mapping System for the Detection of Prostate Cancer With Multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Joanna H Shih; Clayton P Smith; Nathan Lay; Burak Argun; Sandra Bednarova; Ronaldo Hueb Baroni; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Karabekir Ercan; Rossano Girometti; Ercan Karaarslan; Ali Riza Kural; Andrei S Purysko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Victor Martins Tonso; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Ricardo Silvestre E Silva Macarenco; Maria J Merino; Berrak Gumuskaya; Yesim Saglican; Stefano Sioletic; Anne Y Warren; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Bittencourt; Mehmet Coskun; Chris Knauss; Yan Mee Law; Ashkan A Malayeri; Daniel J Margolis; Jamie Marko; Derya Yakar; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Ronald M Summers; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a 'model system' for incidental finding errors in radiology.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Abla Alaoui Soce; Hayden M Schill
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2017-08-23
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.