Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 8/2006

01-08-2006 | Gastrointestinal

CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting

Authors: David Burling, Steve Halligan, Douglas G. Altman, Wendy Atkin, Clive Bartram, Helen Fenlon, Andrea Laghi, Jaap Stoker, Stuart Taylor, Roger Frost, Guido Dessey, Melinda De Villiers, Jasper Florie, Shane Foley, Lesley Honeyfield, Riccardo Iannaccone, Teresa Gallo, Clive Kay, Philippe Lefere, Andrew Lowe, Filipo Mangiapane, Jesse Marrannes, Emmanuele Neri, Giulia Nieddu, David Nicholson, Alan O’Hare, Sante Ori, Benedetta Politi, Martin Poulus, Daniele Regge, Lisa Renaut, Velauthan Rudralingham, Saverio Signoretta, Paola Vagli, Victor Van der Hulst, Jane Williams-Butt

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Our purpose was to assess the effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings on interpretation time for CT colonography. Nine radiologists (experienced in CT colonography); nine radiologists and ten technicians (both groups trained using 50 validated examinations) read 40 cases (50% abnormal) under controlled conditions. Individual interpretation times for each case were recorded, and differences between groups determined. Multi-level linear regression was used to investigate effect of scan category (normal or abnormal) and observer fatigue on interpretation times. Experienced radiologists (mean time 10.9 min, SD 5.2) reported significantly faster than less experienced radiologists and technicians; odds ratios of reporting times 1.4 (CI 1.1, 1.8) and 1.6 (1.3, 2.0), respectively (P≤0.001). Experienced and less-experienced radiologists took longer to report abnormal cases; ratio 1.2 (CI 1.1,1.4, P<0.001) and 1.2 (1.0, 1.3, P=0.03), respectively. All groups took 70% as long to report the final five cases as they did with an initial five; ratio 0.7 (CI 0.6 to 0.8), P<0.001. For technicians only, accuracy increased with longer reporting times (P=0.04). Experienced radiologists report faster than do less-experienced observers and proportionally spend less time interpreting normal cases. Technicians who report more slowly are more accurate. All groups reported faster as the study period progressed.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Marin D, Passariello R (2004) Interpretation methods at CT colonography: Two dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) reading. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program (abstract). Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, Ill, p 479 Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, Mangiapane F, Marin D, Passariello R (2004) Interpretation methods at CT colonography: Two dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) reading. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program (abstract). Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, Ill, p 479
2.
go back to reference Macari M, Lee J, Garcia Figueiras R, Megibow AJ, Bennett GL, Babb JS (2004) Primary 2D versus 3D interpretation techniques using thin section multi-detector row CT colonography. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program (abstract). Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, Ill, p 478 Macari M, Lee J, Garcia Figueiras R, Megibow AJ, Bennett GL, Babb JS (2004) Primary 2D versus 3D interpretation techniques using thin section multi-detector row CT colonography. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program (abstract). Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, Ill, p 478
3.
go back to reference Gluecker T, Meuwly JY, Pescatore P, et al (2002) Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 12:1405–1409PubMedCrossRef Gluecker T, Meuwly JY, Pescatore P, et al (2002) Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 12:1405–1409PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Morley S, Bassett P, Atkin W, et al (2004) CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14:1025–1033PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, Morley S, Bassett P, Atkin W, et al (2004) CT colonography: effect of experience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 14:1025–1033PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S (2004) Fast reading of CT colonography. In fifth International Symposium Virtual Colonoscopy meeting program, Boston, p 143 Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S (2004) Fast reading of CT colonography. In fifth International Symposium Virtual Colonoscopy meeting program, Boston, p 143
6.
go back to reference ESGAR CT colonography study group investigators. Effect of directed training on reader performance for CT Colonography. Radiology (in press) ESGAR CT colonography study group investigators. Effect of directed training on reader performance for CT Colonography. Radiology (in press)
7.
go back to reference Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA, et al (2003) Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 125:688–695PubMedCrossRef Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA, et al (2003) Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 125:688–695PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rockey DC, Paulson EK, Niedzwiecki D, Davis W, Bosworth HB, Sanders L, et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365:305–311PubMed Rockey DC, Paulson EK, Niedzwiecki D, Davis W, Bosworth HB, Sanders L, et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365:305–311PubMed
9.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. New Engl J Med 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, et al (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. New Engl J Med 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference McFarland EG, Pilgram TK, Brink JA, et al (2002) CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance. Radiology 225:380–390PubMedCrossRef McFarland EG, Pilgram TK, Brink JA, et al (2002) CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance. Radiology 225:380–390PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
CT colonography interpretation times: effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings in a multi-centre setting
Authors
David Burling
Steve Halligan
Douglas G. Altman
Wendy Atkin
Clive Bartram
Helen Fenlon
Andrea Laghi
Jaap Stoker
Stuart Taylor
Roger Frost
Guido Dessey
Melinda De Villiers
Jasper Florie
Shane Foley
Lesley Honeyfield
Riccardo Iannaccone
Teresa Gallo
Clive Kay
Philippe Lefere
Andrew Lowe
Filipo Mangiapane
Jesse Marrannes
Emmanuele Neri
Giulia Nieddu
David Nicholson
Alan O’Hare
Sante Ori
Benedetta Politi
Martin Poulus
Daniele Regge
Lisa Renaut
Velauthan Rudralingham
Saverio Signoretta
Paola Vagli
Victor Van der Hulst
Jane Williams-Butt
Publication date
01-08-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2006
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0190-9

Other articles of this Issue 8/2006

European Radiology 8/2006 Go to the issue

Calendar of Events

Calendar of Events