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

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

CT Colon Virtual colonoscopy Computerised tomography 

References

  1. 1.
    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 479Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 478Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gluecker T, Meuwly JY, Pescatore P, et al (2002) Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 12:1405–1409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 14:1025–1033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S (2004) Fast reading of CT colonography. In fifth International Symposium Virtual Colonoscopy meeting program, Boston, p 143Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ESGAR CT colonography study group investigators. Effect of directed training on reader performance for CT Colonography. Radiology (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson CD, Toledano AY, Herman BA, et al (2003) Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting. Gastroenterology 125:688–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 365:305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 349:2191–2200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McFarland EG, Pilgram TK, Brink JA, et al (2002) CT colonography: multiobserver diagnostic performance. Radiology 225:380–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Personalised recommendations