HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fultz, P. J. Articles by Shapiro, D. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fultz, P. J. Articles by Shapiro, D. E.

Ovarian Cancer: Comparison of Observer Performance for Four Methods of Interpreting CT Scans¹

¹ From the Depts of Radiology (P.J.F., C.V.J., R.G., D.R., S.M.S.T., S.M.), Obstetrics and Gynecology (C.A., G.D.P., D.P.W.), and Biostatistics (W.J.H., K.H.Z., D.E.S.), University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY 14642. Received May 7, 1997; revision requested May 27; final revision received Sep 2, 1998; accepted Feb 12, 1999. Supported in part by a grant from Innovations in Patient Care Program, Univ of Rochester Medical Center. Address reprint requests to P.J.F.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of four interpretative methods on observers' mean sensitivity and specificity by using computed tomography (CT) of ovarian carcinoma as a model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scans in 98 patients with ovarian carcinoma and 49 women who were disease free were retrospectively reviewed by four experienced blinded radiologists to compare single-observer reading, single-observer reading with an anatomic checklist, paired-observer reading (simultaneous double reading), and replicated reading (combination of two independent readings). Confidence level scoring was used to identify three possible disease forms in each patient: extranodal tumor, lymphadenopathy, and ascites. Patient conditions were then categorized as abnormal or normal.

RESULTS: There were no significant improvements in sensitivity or specificity for classification of patient conditions as abnormal or normal when comparing single-observer interpretation with single-observer interpretation with a checklist or paired-observer interpretation. Although there was no significant improvement in the mean sensitivity (93% vs 94%) by using the replicated reading method, there was a statistically significant improvement in mean specificity (85% vs 79%) for the replicated readings compared with single-observer interpretations (P < .05).

CONCLUSION: Diagnostic aids such as checklists and paired simultaneous readings did not lead to an improved mean observer performance for experienced readers. However, an increase in the mean specificity occurred with replicated readings.

Index terms: Diagnostic radiology, observer performance, 852.12112 • Images, interpretation, 852.12112 • Ovary, CT, 852.12112 • Ovary, neoplasms, 852.32

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P Goddard, A Leslie, A Jones, C Wakeley, and J Kabala Error in radiology Br. J. Radiol., October 1, 2001; 74(886): 949 - 951. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]