Observational studyEuropean radiology2019
Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?
Observational study in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning for automatic volumetric bowel segmentation on body CT images.European radiology · 2025Article
- CT colonography: revisited after 30 years.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Single CT Appointment for Double Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Is the Time Ripe?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Re-initiation of CT colonography services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Preliminary evaluation of safety.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan.
methodsRetrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies ("negative interpretation time"). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR.
resultsFive thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected.
conclusionsReporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (> 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker.
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.