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

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% abnorma...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European radiology 2006-08, Vol.16 (8), p.1745-1749
Hauptverfasser: Burling, David, Halligan, Steve, Altman, Douglas G, Atkin, Wendy, Bartram, Clive, Fenlon, Helen, Laghi, Andrea, Stoker, Jaap, Taylor, Stuart, Frost, Roger, Dessey, Guido, De Villiers, Melinda, Florie, Jasper, Foley, Shane, Honeyfield, Lesley, Iannaccone, Riccardo, Gallo, Teresa, Kay, Clive, Lefere, Philippe, Lowe, Andrew, Mangiapane, Filipo, Marrannes, Jesse, Neri, Emmanuele, Nieddu, Giulia, Nicholson, David, O'Hare, Alan, Ori, Sante, Politi, Benedetta, Poulus, Martin, Regge, Daniele, Renaut, Lisa, Rudralingham, Velauthan, Signoretta, Saverio, Vagli, Paola, Van der Hulst, Victor, Williams-Butt, Jane
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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
ISSN:0938-7994
1432-1084
DOI:10.1007/s00330-006-0190-9