Ovarian cancer: Comparison of observer performance for four methods of interpreting CT scans

Radiology

Volumn 212, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 401-410

  Fultz, Patrick J ^a   Jacobs, Christina V ^a   Hall, W Jackson ^a   Gottlieb, Ronald ^a   Rubens, Deborah ^a   Totterman, Saara M S ^a   Meyers, Steven ^a   Angel, Cynthia ^a   Del Priore, Giuseppe ^a   Warshal, David P ^a,b   Zou, Kelly H ^a,c   Shapiro, David E ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Division of Genetics Cooper Medical School of Rowan University Cooper University Health Care 3   (United States)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR BIOSTATISTICS IN AIDS RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Images, interpretation; Ovary, CT; Ovary, neoplasms

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASCITES; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH ROUTE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LYMPHADENOPATHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OVARY CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0032801108     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.212.2.r99au19401     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Birkelo CC, Chamberlain WE, Phelps PS, Schools PE, Zacks D, Yerushalmy J. Tuberculosis case findings: a comparison of the effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. JAMA 1947; 133:359-366.
2. Muhm JR, Miller WE, Fontana RS, et al. Lung cancer detected during a screening program using four-month chest radiographs. Radiology 1983; 148:609-615.
3. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1493-1499.
4. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by U.S. radiologists. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:209-213.
5. Warde P, Rideout DF, Herman S, et al. Computed tomography in advanced ovarian cancer: inter- and intraobserver reliability. Invest Radiol 1986; 21:31-33.
6. Wakeley CJ, Jones AM, Kabala JE, Prince D, Goddard PR. Audit of the value of double reading magnetic resonance imaging films. Br J Radiol 1995; 68:358-360.
7. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1998. Cancer 1998; 47:6-29.
8. Forstner R, Hricak H, White S. CT and MRI of ovarian cancer. Abdom Imaging 1995; 20:2-8.
9. Nelson RC, Frederick MG. Peritoneal carcinomatosis. Abdom Imaging 1995; 20:56-57.
10. Kinard RE, Orrison WW, Brogdon BG. The value of a worksheet in reporting body-CT examinations. AJR 1986; 147:848-849.
11. Metz CE, Shen JH. Gains in accuracy from replicated readings of diagnostic images: prediction and assessment in terms of ROC analysis. Med Decis Making 1992; 12:60-75.
12. Hessel SJ, Herman PG, Swensson RG. Improving performance by multiple interpretations of chest radiographs: effectiveness and cost. Radiology 1978; 127:589-594.
13. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley, 1981.
14. Dorfman DD, Alf E. Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of method data. J Math Psych 1969; 6:487-496.
15. Metz CE, Wang PL, Kronman HB. A new approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Information Processing in Medical Imaging Conference. The Hague, the Netherlands: Nijhoff, 1984; 432-454.
16. Webb RW, Sarin M, Zerhouni EA, Heelan RT, Glazer GM, Gatsonis C. Interobserver variability in CT and MR staging of lung cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993; 17:841-846.
17. Koran LM. The reliability of clinical methods, data and judgments. I. N Engl J Med 1975; 293:642-648.
18. Koran LM. The reliability of clinical methods, data and judgments. II. N Engl J Med 1975; 293:695-701.
19. Markus JB, Somers S, O'Mally BP, Stevenson GW. Double-contrast barium enema studies: effect of multiple reading on perception error. Radiology 1990; 175:155-156.
20. Yerushalmy J, Harkness JT, Cope JH, Kennedy BR. The role of dual reading in mass radiography. Am Rev Tuberc 1950; 61:443-463.
21. Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 1994; 49:248-251.
22. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994; 191:241-244.
23. Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:891-897.
24. Hillman BJ, Swensson RG, Hessel SJ, Gerson DE, Herman PG. The value of consultation among radiologists. AJR 1976; 127:807-809.
25. Hillman BJ, Hessel SJ, Swensson RG, Herman PG. Improving diagnostic accuracy: a comparison of interactive and Delphi consultations. Invest Radiol 1977; 12:112-115.
26. Curtis PB, Ferrell WR, Hillman BJ. Improved imaging diagnosis by sequentially combined confidence judgments. Invest Radiol 1988; 23:342-347.
27. Ferrell WR, Hillman BJ, Brewer ML, Amendola MA, Thornbury JR. Interactive, mathematical, and sequential consultative methods in diagnosing renal masses on excretory urograms. Invest Radiol 1989; 24:456-462.
28. Getty DJ, Pickett RM, D'Orsi CJ, Swets JA. Enhanced interpretation of diagnostic images. Invest Radiol 1988; 23:240-252.
29. Swets JA, Getty DJ, Pickett RM, D'Orsi CJ, Seltzer SE, McNeil BJ. Enhancing and evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Med Decis Making 1991; 11:9-18.
30. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Floyd CE Jr. Artificial neural network: improving the quality of breast biopsy recommendations. Radiology 1996; 198:131-135.
31. Seltzer SE, Getty DJ, Tempany CM, et al. Staging prostate cancer with MR imaging: a combined radiologist-computer system. Radiology 1997; 202:219-226.