Back to Search
Start Over
The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial.
- Source :
-
European radiology [Eur Radiol] 2018 Jan; Vol. 28 (1), pp. 226-234. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Jun 22. - Publication Year :
- 2018
-
Abstract
- Objectives: To compare radiologists' performance reading CTs independently with their performance using radiographers as concurrent readers in lung cancer screening.<br />Methods: 369 consecutive baseline CTs performed for the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial were double-read by radiologists reading either independently or concurrently with a radiographer. In concurrent reading, the radiologist reviewed radiographer-identified nodules and then detected any additional nodules. Radiologists recorded their independent and concurrent reading times. For each radiologist, sensitivity, average false-positive detections (FPs) per case and mean reading times for each method were calculated.<br />Results: 694 nodules in 246/369 (66.7%) studies comprised the reference standard. Radiologists' mean sensitivity and average FPs per case both increased with concurrent reading compared to independent reading (90.8 ± 5.6% vs. 77.5 ± 11.2%, and 0.60 ± 0.53 vs. 0.33 ± 0.20, respectively; p < 0.05 for 3/4 and 2/4 radiologists, respectively). The mean reading times per case decreased from 9.1 ± 2.3 min with independent reading to 7.2 ± 1.0 min with concurrent reading, decreasing significantly for 3/4 radiologists (p < 0.05).<br />Conclusions: The majority of radiologists demonstrated improved sensitivity, a small increase in FP detections and a statistically significantly reduced reading time using radiographers as concurrent readers.<br />Key Points: • Radiographers as concurrent readers could improve radiologists' sensitivity in lung nodule detection. • An increase in false-positive detections with radiographer-assisted concurrent reading occurred. • The false-positive detection rate was still lower than reported for computer-aided detection. • Concurrent reading with radiographers was also faster than single reading. • The time saved per case using concurrently reading radiographers was relatively modest.
- Subjects :
- Humans
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Time
United Kingdom
Clinical Competence statistics & numerical data
Lung Neoplasms diagnostic imaging
Medical Laboratory Personnel statistics & numerical data
Radiologists statistics & numerical data
Tomography, X-Ray Computed methods
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1432-1084
- Volume :
- 28
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- European radiology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 28643093
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4903-z