Simple steps for improving multiple-reader studies in radiology
Simple steps for improving multiple-reader studies in radiology
复制标题
DOI：
10.2214/ajr.166.3.8623619
复制
发表时间：
1996-03-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Zepp, RC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Obuchowski, NA;Zepp, RC
多读者研究设计在放射学文献中很受欢迎。我们回顾了1990年和1995年前4个月发表在《美国放射学杂志》上的主要论文。该综述仅限于图像解释的前瞻性研究。在1990年的文献中，我们注意到8个多读者研究和18个单读者研究；相比之下，在1995年的文献中，我们发现29个多读者研究和8个单读者研究。这一趋势反映了人们对多读者研究重要性的认识日益增强。我们检查了从1995年开始的29项多读者研究的结果部分，以评估作者纳入这种设计的动机。在16项研究中(55%)，读者独立解读了所有图像。然而，作者通常只报道读者的平均解释；在29项研究中，只有7项(24%)作者描述了读者解释的差异。在13项研究中，解读完全是通过“共识阅读”进行的。用来达成共识的方法(S)往往没有得到解释。在29项研究中，只有两项研究的读者人数超过三人。相比之下，所有这些研究都包括多名患者。平均患者样本量为45人。此外，观察到的患者之间的差异是常规报告和/或描述的。
Multiple-reader study designs have become popular in the radiology literature. We reviewed the major papers published in the American Journal of Roentgenology in the first 4 months of each of the years 1990 and 1995. The review was restricted to prospective studies of image interpretation. In the 1990 literature, we noted eight multiple-reader and 18 single-reader studies; in contrast, in the 1995 literature, we found 29 multiple-reader and eight single-reader studies. This trend reflects an increased awareness of the importance of multiple-reader studies. We examined the Results sections of the 29 multiple-reader studies from 1995 to assess the authors' motives for incorporating such a design. In 16 studies (55%), readers independently interpreted all images. However, the authors usually reported only the average interpretation of the readers; in only seven of the 29 studies (24%) did the authors describe differences among readers' interpretations. In 13 studies, interpretations were performed exclusively through ''consensus reading.'' The method(s) used to achieve a consensus often were not explained. Only two of the 29 studies had more than three readers. In contrast, all of these studies included multiple patients. The average patient sample size was 45. Furthermore, differences observed among patients were routinely reported and/or depicted.