HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jaffe, T. A. Articles by Paulson, E. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jaffe, T. A. Articles by Paulson, E. K.

Abdominal Pain: Coronal Reformations from Isotropic Voxels with 16-Section CT—Reader Lesion Detection and Interpretation Time¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Erwin Rd, Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710. Received January 4, 2006; revision requested March 2; revision received March 15; accepted April 4; final version accepted June 5. Address correspondence to T.A.J. (e-mail: jaffe002{at}mc.duke.edu).

Purpose: To retrospectively assess if reader detection of intraabdominal pathologic findings on coronal reformations from isotropic voxels at 16-section computed tomography (CT) was similar to reader detection on transverse scans.

Materials and Methods: The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant study, and a waiver of informed consent was obtained. Twenty-nine consecutive patients (12 men, 17 women; mean age, 48 years; age range, 21–93 years) with abdominal pain underwent 16-section CT with coronal reformations. Eight independent readers reviewed randomized scans (transverse and coronal) and identified pathologic findings in multiple organ systems. Timing for each interpretation was recorded. One month later, readers reviewed the scan reformatted in the other imaging plane. Agreement between transverse and coronal scans was measured by using Cohen coefficients.

Results: Agreement was moderate to near perfect between transverse and coronal interpretations for intraabdominal anatomic and pathologic findings ( = 0.59–1.00). For transverse interpretations, more thoracic pathologic findings were noted than for coronal interpretations; for coronal interpretations, more lymph nodes were noted than for transverse interpretations. Mean transverse interpretation time was 4.9 minutes ± 1.1 (standard deviation) (range, 2.9–6.5 minutes); mean coronal interpretation time was 5.1 minutes ± 0.8 (range, 3.3–6.7 minutes). For each reader, there was no statistically significant difference in interpretation time between transverse and coronal scans (P = .06).

Conclusion: With regard to the presence of intraabdominal pathologic findings, coronal reformations from isotropic voxels are similar to transverse scans in terms of interpretation time and reader agreement.

© RSNA, 2007