ArticleEuropean radiology2018
The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- CARE-radiology statement explanation and elaboration: reporting guideline for radiological case reports.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Guideline
- Clinical applications of deep learning in distinguishing benign from malignant pulmonary nodules in computed tomography scans.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in personalizing lung cancer management: state of the art and future perspectives.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Formalising written preliminary image evaluation by Australian radiographers: a review of practice value.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Review
- Implementation of artificial intelligence in thoracic imaging-a what, how, and why guide from the European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI).European radiology · 2023Review
- Lung nodules: sorting the wheat from the chaff.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Total nodule number as an independent prognostic factor in resected stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a deep learning-powered study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Putting artificial intelligence (AI) on the spot: machine learning evaluation of pulmonary nodules.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- New fissure-attached nodules in lung cancer screening: more practical implications from the NELSON study?Translational lung cancer research · 2020Article
- Development and clinical application of deep learning model for lung nodules screening on CT images.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Artificial intelligence in diagnostic imaging: impact on the radiography profession.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Reporting radiographers and their role in thoracic CT service improvement: managing the pulmonary nodule.BJR open · 2020Article
- Lung cancer screening: tell me more about post-test risk.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Impact of AI Assistance on Radiologist Accuracy for Lung Nodule Detection on Chest CT.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare radiologists' performance reading CTs independently with their performance using radiographers as concurrent readers in lung cancer screening.
methods369 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.
results694 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).
conclusionsThe majority of radiologists demonstrated improved sensitivity, a small increase in FP detections and a statistically significantly reduced reading time using radiographers as concurrent readers. 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.