Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28281908›Full record

ArticleRadiology2017

Increasing Navigation Speed at Endoluminal CT Colonography Reduces Colonic Visualization and Polyp Identification.

Andrew A Plumb, Peter Phillips, Graeme Spence, Susan Mallett, Stuart A Taylor, Steve Halligan, Thomas Fanshawe

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2017. 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. Observational
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

7 authors.

Andrew A PlumbFrom the Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, England (A.A.P., S.A.T., S.H.); Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, England (P.P.); Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (G.S., T.F.); Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (S.M.).
Peter PhillipsFrom the Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, England (A.A.P., S.A.T., S.H.); Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, England (P.P.); Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (G.S., T.F.); Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (S.M.).
Graeme SpenceFrom the Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, England (A.A.P., S.A.T., S.H.); Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, England (P.P.); Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (G.S., T.F.); Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (S.M.).
Susan MallettFrom the Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, England (A.A.P., S.A.T., S.H.); Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, England (P.P.); Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (G.S., T.F.); Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (S.M.).
Stuart A TaylorFrom the Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, England (A.A.P., S.A.T., S.H.); Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, England (P.P.); Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (G.S., T.F.); Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (S.M.).
Steve HalliganFrom the Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, England (A.A.P., S.A.T., S.H.); Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, England (P.P.); Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (G.S., T.F.); Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (S.M.).
Thomas FanshaweFrom the Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, England (A.A.P., S.A.T., S.H.); Health and Medical Sciences Group, University of Cumbria, Lancaster, England (P.P.); Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (G.S., T.F.); Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (S.M.).

Funding

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

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the effect of increasing navigation speed on the visual search and decision making during polyp identification for computed tomography (CT) colonography Materials and Methods Institutional review board permission was obtained to use deidentified CT colonography data for this prospective reader study. After obtaining informed consent from the readers, 12 CT colonography fly-through examinations that depicted eight polyps were presented at four different fixed navigation speeds to 23 radiologists. Speeds ranged from 1 cm/sec to 4.5 cm/sec. Gaze position was tracked by using an infrared eye tracker, and readers indicated that they saw a polyp by clicking a mouse. Patterns of searching and decision making by speed were investigated graphically and by multilevel modeling. Results Readers identified polyps correctly in 56 of 77 (72.7%) of viewings at the slowest speed but in only 137 of 225 (60.9%) of viewings at the fastest speed (P = .004). They also identified fewer false-positive features at faster speeds (42 of 115; 36.5%) of videos at slowest speed, 89 of 345 (25.8%) at fastest, P = .02). Gaze location was highly concentrated toward the central quarter of the screen area at faster speeds (mean gaze points at slowest speed vs fastest speed, 86% vs 97%, respectively). Conclusion Faster navigation speed at endoluminal CT colonography led to progressive restriction of visual search patterns. Greater speed also reduced both true-positive and false-positive colorectal polyp identification.

Indexed as

RadiologistsAdultColonic PolypsColonography, Computed TomographicEye MovementsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID28281908
PMCPMC5548448

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.