View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
Authors: Obaro, Anu E.1,2 (AUTHOR), Plumb, Andrew A.1 (AUTHOR) andrew.plumb@ucl.ac.uk, North, Michael P.2 (AUTHOR), Halligan, Steve1 (AUTHOR), Burling, David N.2 (AUTHOR)
Source: European Radiology. Nov2019, Vol. 29 Issue 11, p5784-5790. 7p. 1 Chart, 2 Graphs.
Subjects: Virtual colonoscopy, Radiologists, Algorithms, Clinical competence, Colon tumors, Comparative studies, Epidemiological research, Research methodology, Medical cooperation, Rectum tumors, Research, Research funding, Evaluation research, Colon polyps
Abstract: Objectives: To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan.Methods: Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies ("negative interpretation time"). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR.Results: Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected.Conclusions: Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly.Key Points: • CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (> 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 139163653
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Obaro%2C+Anu+E%2E%22&quot;&gt;Obaro, Anu E.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;1,2&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Plumb%2C+Andrew+A%2E%22&quot;&gt;Plumb, Andrew A.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;1&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)&lt;i&gt; andrew.plumb@ucl.ac.uk&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22North%2C+Michael+P%2E%22&quot;&gt;North, Michael P.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;2&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Halligan%2C+Steve%22&quot;&gt;Halligan, Steve&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;1&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Burling%2C+David+N%2E%22&quot;&gt;Burling, David N.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;2&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;JN&quot; term=&quot;%22European+Radiology%22&quot;&gt;European Radiology&lt;/searchLink&gt;. Nov2019, Vol. 29 Issue 11, p5784-5790. 7p. 1 Chart, 2 Graphs.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Virtual+colonoscopy%22&quot;&gt;Virtual colonoscopy&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Radiologists%22&quot;&gt;Radiologists&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Algorithms%22&quot;&gt;Algorithms&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Clinical+competence%22&quot;&gt;Clinical competence&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Colon+tumors%22&quot;&gt;Colon tumors&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Comparative+studies%22&quot;&gt;Comparative studies&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Epidemiological+research%22&quot;&gt;Epidemiological research&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Research+methodology%22&quot;&gt;Research methodology&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Medical+cooperation%22&quot;&gt;Medical cooperation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Rectum+tumors%22&quot;&gt;Rectum tumors&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Research%22&quot;&gt;Research&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Research+funding%22&quot;&gt;Research funding&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Evaluation+research%22&quot;&gt;Evaluation research&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Colon+polyps%22&quot;&gt;Colon polyps&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: &lt;bold&gt;Objectives: &lt;/bold&gt;To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan.&lt;bold&gt;Methods: &lt;/bold&gt;Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6&#160;mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies (&quot;negative interpretation time&quot;). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR.&lt;bold&gt;Results: &lt;/bold&gt;Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p &lt; 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected.&lt;bold&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/bold&gt;Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly.&lt;bold&gt;Key Points: &lt;/bold&gt;• CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (&gt; 20&#160;min per case) or for too long (&gt; 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: &lt;i&gt;Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder&#39;s express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.&lt;/i&gt; (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=139163653
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s00330-019-06175-y
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 5784
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Virtual colonoscopy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Radiologists
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Algorithms
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinical competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Colon tumors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Epidemiological research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rectum tumors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research funding
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Colon polyps
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Obaro, Anu E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Plumb, Andrew A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: North, Michael P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Halligan, Steve
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burling, David N.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Text: Nov2019
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09387994
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Radiology
              Type: main
ResultId 1