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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Robinson, C. Articles by Altman, D. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Robinson, C. Articles by Altman, D. G.

CT Colonography: A Systematic Review of Standard of Reporting for Studies of Computer-aided Detection¹

¹ From the Department of Specialist Radiology, University College Hospital and University College London, 235 Euston Rd, Podium Level 2, London NW1 2BU, England (C.R., S.H., S.A.T.); and the National Health Service Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College Annex, Oxford, England (D.G.A., S.M.). Received January 18, 2007; revision requested March 22; revision received May 24; final version accepted July 6. S.H. and S.A.T. are remunerated consultants for Medicsight, and Medicsight has contributed to costs of other related research at the Centre for Statistics in Medicine. Address correspondence to S.H. (e-mail: s.halligan{at}ucl.ac.uk).

Purpose: To determine objectively the current standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic (CT) colonography by systematically reviewing published articles.

Materials and Methods: MEDLINE was searched to identify study articles meeting the inclusion criteria for describing CAD for CT colonography in human subjects. Data were extracted from eligible articles, grouped into five domains: technical description of CAD algorithm, description of subjects, acquisition of data, evaluation strategy used, and presentation of results. Primary studies were scored for each domain and overall findings plotted as star plots.

Results: Although 21 (91%) of the 23 studies included presented technical details of the CAD algorithm, methodologic details used for model development and validity were generally poor. Investigators in six (26%) studies described the evaluation data set sufficiently for replication; investigators in eight (35%) studies described age and sex demographics for subjects in whom CAD was tested. Investigators in 11 (48%) studies presented polyps per subject. Investigators in 12 (52%) studies described the reference standard against which CAD was judged; 11 (48%) studies explicitly distinguished between development and evaluation data. In nine (39%) studies, the evaluation strategy used to test CAD could not be deduced at all. Description of subjects included for CAD development and evaluation was most poorly reported, with an average score per study of 33% in this domain.

Conclusion: The reporting quality for studies of CAD for CT colonography is highly variable; key methodologic details needed for informed assessment of the generalizability of results are frequently omitted, for which a minimum data set based on the observations is proposed.

© RSNA, 2008

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. J. Oates, D. J. M. Tolan, K. Horsthuis, S. Bipat, and J. Stoker Standard of Reporting for Studies on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 390 - 391. [Full Text] [PDF]