Thomas R Fanshawe1, Peter Phillips2, Andrew Plumb3, Emma Helbren3, Steve Halligan3, Stuart A Taylor3, Alastair Gale4, Susan Mallett5. 1. 1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. 2 Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, UK. 3. 3 Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK. 4. 4 Applied Vision Research Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. 5. 5 Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of expected abnormality prevalence on visual search and decision-making in CT colonography (CTC). METHODS: 13 radiologists interpreted endoluminal CTC fly-throughs of the same group of 10 patient cases, 3 times each. Abnormality prevalence was fixed (50%), but readers were told, before viewing each group, that prevalence was either 20%, 50% or 80% in the population from which cases were drawn. Infrared visual search recording was used. Readers indicated seeing a polyp by clicking a mouse. Multilevel modelling quantified the effect of expected prevalence on outcomes. RESULTS: Differences between expected prevalence were not statistically significant for time to first pursuit of the polyp (median 0.5 s, each prevalence), pursuit rate when no polyp was on screen (median 2.7 s(-1), each prevalence) or number of mouse clicks [mean 0.75/video (20% prevalence), 0.93 (50%), 0.97 (80%)]. There was weak evidence of increased tendency to look outside the central screen area at 80% prevalence and reduction in positive polyp identifications at 20% prevalence. CONCLUSION: This study did not find a large effect of prevalence information on most visual search metrics or polyp identification in CTC. Further research is required to quantify effects at lower prevalence and in relation to secondary outcome measures. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Prevalence effects in evaluating CTC have not previously been assessed. In this study, providing expected prevalence information did not have a large effect on diagnostic decisions or patterns of visual search.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of expected abnormality prevalence on visual search and decision-making in CT colonography (CTC). METHODS: 13 radiologists interpreted endoluminal CTC fly-throughs of the same group of 10 patient cases, 3 times each. Abnormality prevalence was fixed (50%), but readers were told, before viewing each group, that prevalence was either 20%, 50% or 80% in the population from which cases were drawn. Infrared visual search recording was used. Readers indicated seeing a polyp by clicking a mouse. Multilevel modelling quantified the effect of expected prevalence on outcomes. RESULTS: Differences between expected prevalence were not statistically significant for time to first pursuit of the polyp (median 0.5 s, each prevalence), pursuit rate when no polyp was on screen (median 2.7 s(-1), each prevalence) or number of mouse clicks [mean 0.75/video (20% prevalence), 0.93 (50%), 0.97 (80%)]. There was weak evidence of increased tendency to look outside the central screen area at 80% prevalence and reduction in positive polyp identifications at 20% prevalence. CONCLUSION: This study did not find a large effect of prevalence information on most visual search metrics or polyp identification in CTC. Further research is required to quantify effects at lower prevalence and in relation to secondary outcome measures. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Prevalence effects in evaluating CTC have not previously been assessed. In this study, providing expected prevalence information did not have a large effect on diagnostic decisions or patterns of visual search.
Authors: Esther M Stoop; Margriet C de Haan; Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Patrick M Bossuyt; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; C Yung Nio; Marc J van de Vijver; Katharina Biermann; Maarten Thomeer; Monique E van Leerdam; Paul Fockens; Jaap Stoker; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Steve Halligan; Susan Mallett; Douglas G Altman; Justine McQuillan; Maria Proud; Gareth Beddoe; Lesley Honeyfield; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin V Pusic; John S Andrews; David O Kessler; David C Teng; Martin R Pecaric; Carrie Ruzal-Shapiro; Kathy Boutis Journal: Med Educ Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Anina N Rich; Melina A Kunar; Michael J Van Wert; Barbara Hidalgo-Sotelo; Todd S Horowitz; Jeremy M Wolfe Journal: J Vis Date: 2008-11-24 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Daniele Regge; Cristiana Laudi; Giovanni Galatola; Patrizia Della Monica; Luigina Bonelli; Giuseppe Angelelli; Roberto Asnaghi; Brunella Barbaro; Carlo Bartolozzi; Didier Bielen; Luca Boni; Claudia Borghi; Paolo Bruzzi; Maria Carla Cassinis; Massimo Galia; Teresa Maria Gallo; Andrea Grasso; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi; Maria Cristina Martina; Emanuele Neri; Carlo Senore; Giovanni Simonetti; Silvia Venturini; Giovanni Gandini Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wendy Atkin; Edward Dadswell; Kate Wooldrage; Ines Kralj-Hans; Christian von Wagner; Rob Edwards; Guiqing Yao; Clive Kay; David Burling; Omar Faiz; Julian Teare; Richard J Lilford; Dion Morton; Jane Wardle; Steve Halligan Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321