Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26903391›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016

Do prevalence expectations affect patterns of visual search and decision-making in interpreting CT colonography endoluminal videos?

Thomas R Fanshawe, Peter Phillips, Andrew Plumb, Emma Helbren, Steve Halligan, Stuart A Taylor, Alastair Gale, Susan Mallett

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology AloneAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Thomas R Fanshawe1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter Phillips2 Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, UK.
Andrew Plumb3 Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Emma Helbren3 Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Steve Halligan3 Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Stuart A Taylor3 Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Alastair Gale4 Applied Vision Research Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Susan Mallett5 Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effect of expected abnormality prevalence on visual search and decision-making in CT colonography (CTC).

methods13 radiologists interpreted endoluminal CTC fly-throughs of the same group of 10 patient cases, 3 times each. Abnormality prevalence was fixed (50%), but readers were told, before viewing each group, that prevalence was either 20%, 50% or 80% in the population from which cases were drawn. Infrared visual search recording was used. Readers indicated seeing a polyp by clicking a mouse. Multilevel modelling quantified the effect of expected prevalence on outcomes.

resultsDifferences between expected prevalence were not statistically significant for time to first pursuit of the polyp (median 0.5 s, each prevalence), pursuit rate when no polyp was on screen (median 2.7 s(-1), each prevalence) or number of mouse clicks [mean 0.75/video (20% prevalence), 0.93 (50%), 0.97 (80%)]. There was weak evidence of increased tendency to look outside the central screen area at 80% prevalence and reduction in positive polyp identifications at 20% prevalence.

conclusionThis study did not find a large effect of prevalence information on most visual search metrics or polyp identification in CTC. Further research is required to quantify effects at lower prevalence and in relation to secondary outcome measures. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Prevalence effects in evaluating CTC have not previously been assessed. In this study, providing expected prevalence information did not have a large effect on diagnostic decisions or patterns of visual search.

Indexed as

Anticipation, PsychologicalAdultClinical CompetenceClinical Decision-MakingColonic PolypsColonography, Computed TomographicEye MovementsFemaleHumansMaleRadiologyVideo RecordingVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID26903391
PMCPMC4846211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.