Formative evaluation of standardized training for CT colonographic image interpretation by novice readers

Radiology

Volumn 249, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 167-177

  Dachman, Abraham H ^a,f   B Kelly, Katherine ^a   P Zintsmaster, Michael ^b   Rana, Rich ^c   Khankari, Shweta ^a   Novak, Joseph D ^a   N Ali, Arif ^d   Qalbani, Adnan ^e   Fletcher, Joel G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^c WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f Breast Care Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COLON POLYP; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; EDUCATION PROGRAM; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDIZATION; TRAINING; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; EVALUATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; TEACHING;

COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; HUMANS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TEACHING;

EID: 53749101522     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2491080059     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Barish MA, Soto JA, Ferucci JT. Consensus on current clinical practice of virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:786-792.
2. Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Kim DH, Reichelderfer M, Gopal DV, Pfau PR. Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the 1st year of coverage by third-party payers. Radiology 2006;241:417-425.
3. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Burling D, et al. CT colonography: effect ofexperience and training on reader performance. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1025-1033.
4. Slater A, Taylor SA, Tam E, et al. Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2275-2283.
5. European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology CT Colonography Group Investigators. Effect ofdirected training on reader performance for CT colonography: multicenter study. Radiology 2007;242:152-161.
6. Soto JA, Barish MA, Yee J. Reader training in CT colonography: how much is enough? [editorial]. Radiology 2005;237:26-27.
7. Nio CY, de Vries AH, Stoker J. Perceptive errors in CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 2007;32:556-570.
8. Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A, Sangiovanni A, Del Favero C, Minoli G. Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:394-400.
9. Gluecker T, Meuwly JY, Pescatore P, et al. Effect of investigator experience in CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1405-1409.
10. Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H, et al. Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetec- tor computed tomography colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr2003;27:132-139.
11. Jensch S, van Gelder RE, Florie J, et al. Performance of radiographers in the evaluation of CT colonographic images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:W249-W255.
12. Burling D, Halligan S, Atchley J, et al. CT colonography: interpretive performance in a non-academic environment. Clin Radiol 2007;62:424-429.
13. Baker ME, Bogoni L, Obuchowski NA, et al. Computer aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve less experienced readers' sensitivity? preliminary experience. Radiology 2007;245:140-149.
14. FidlerJL, FletcherJG, JohnsonCD, etal. Understanding interpretive errors in radiologists learning computed tomography colonography. Acad Radiol 2004;11:750-756.
15. Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Engelby T, et al. Nonradiologists as second readers for in- traluminal findings at CT colonography. Acad Radiol 2005;12:67-73.
16. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance of computed tomographic (CT) colonography in adults: ACR practice guideline 2002 (Res. 2). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2005; 295-299.
17. Rockey DC, Barish M, Brill JV, et al. Standards for gastroenterologists for performing and interpreting diagnostic computed tomographic colonography. Gastroenterology 2007;133:1005-1024.
18. Scriven M. Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In: McLaughlin MW, Phillips E, eds. Evaluation and education: a quarter century. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
19. Dachman AH. Advice for optimizing colonic distention and minimizing risk ofperforation during CT colonography. Radiology 2006;239:317-321.
20. Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 2005;236:3-9.
21. Dachman AH, ed. Atlas of virtual colonos- copy. 1st ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2003.
22. Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, et al. Significance of missed polyps at CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:127-134.
23. Halligan S, Park SH, Ha HK. Causes offalsenegative findings at CT colonography [letter]. Radiology 2006;238:1075-1077.
24. FidlerJL, JohnsonCD, MacCartyRL, Welch TJ, Hara AK, HarmsenWS. Detection of flat lesions in the colon with CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 2002;27:292-300.
25. Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Choi JR, Schindler WR. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:352-359.
26. PickhardtPJ, NugentPA, ChoiJR, Schindler WR. Flat colorectal lesions in asymptomatic adults: implications for screening with CT virtual colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1343-1347.
27. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR. Adenomatous polyp obscured by small-caliber rectal catheter at low-dose CT colonography: a rare diagnostic pitfall. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184: 1581-1583.
28. Rockey DC, Paulson E, Davis W, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: pro- spectivecomparison. Lancet 2005;365:305-311.
29. Wagner RF, Metz CE, Campbell G. Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. Acad Radiol 2007;14:723-748.
30. Pickhardt PJ, Lee AD, McFarland EG, Taylor AJ. Linear polyp measurement at CT colonography: in vitro and in vivo comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays. Radiology 2005;236:872-878.
31. Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004;291:1713- 1719.
32. Doshi T, Rusinak DJ, Halvorsen RA, Rockey DC, Dachman AH. Retrospective analysis of sources of error in a large CTC clinical trial. Radiology 2007;244:165-173.
33. Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003;125:311-319.
34. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2191-2200.
35. Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, et al. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001;219:685-692.
36. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I, et al. Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg 2002;183:124-131.
37. Ferrucci J, Barish M, Choi R, et al. Virtual colonoscopy. JAMA 2004;292:431-432.
38. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, et al. Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 2000;216:704-711.
39. Pickhardt PJ. Screening CT colonography: how I do it. AJR AmJ Roentgenol 2007;189: 290-298.
40. Dachman AH, Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Morin M. CT colonography: visualization methods, interpretation, and pitfalls. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:347-359.