European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 1745–1749

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

  • 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
Gastrointestinal

DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0190-9

Cite this article as:
Burling, D., Halligan, S., Altman, D.G. et al. Eur Radiol (2006) 16: 1745. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0190-9

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.

Keywords

CTColonVirtual colonoscopyComputerised tomography

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Burling
    • 1
  • Steve Halligan
    • 2
  • Douglas G. Altman
    • 3
  • Wendy Atkin
    • 9
  • Clive Bartram
    • 1
  • Helen Fenlon
    • 4
  • Andrea Laghi
    • 5
  • Jaap Stoker
    • 6
  • Stuart Taylor
    • 2
  • Roger Frost
    • 7
  • Guido Dessey
    • 8
  • Melinda De Villiers
    • 1
  • Jasper Florie
    • 6
  • Shane Foley
    • 4
  • Lesley Honeyfield
    • 1
  • Riccardo Iannaccone
    • 5
  • Teresa Gallo
    • 10
  • Clive Kay
    • 11
  • Philippe Lefere
    • 8
  • Andrew Lowe
    • 11
  • Filipo Mangiapane
    • 5
  • Jesse Marrannes
    • 8
  • Emmanuele Neri
    • 12
  • Giulia Nieddu
    • 10
  • David Nicholson
    • 13
  • Alan O’Hare
    • 4
  • Sante Ori
    • 5
  • Benedetta Politi
    • 12
  • Martin Poulus
    • 6
  • Daniele Regge
    • 10
  • Lisa Renaut
    • 13
  • Velauthan Rudralingham
    • 13
  • Saverio Signoretta
    • 10
  • Paola Vagli
    • 12
  • Victor Van der Hulst
    • 6
  • Jane Williams-Butt
    • 11
  1. 1.Intestinal Imaging CentreSt. Marks HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Specialist Radiology, Level 2 PodiumUniversity College HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.Centre for Medical StatisticsOxfordUK
  4. 4.Mater MisericordiaeDublinIreland
  5. 5.La SapienzaRomeItaly
  6. 6.Amsterdam Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Salisbury District HospitalSalisburyUK
  8. 8.Stedelijk ZiekenhuisRoeselareBelgium
  9. 9.Cancer Research UKSt Mark’s HospitalLondonUK
  10. 10.Candiolo Oncologic HospitalTurinItaly
  11. 11.Bradford Royal InfirmaryBradfordUK
  12. 12.University of PisaPisaItaly
  13. 13.Hope HospitalSalfordUK